Per Goodman Hoops...


Let's face it: Hunter Dickinson to Kansas was an easy decision.

- He'll play with an elite passing point guard in Dajuan Harris.

- He'll play for a Hall of Fame coach.

- That Hall of Fame coach has utilized big men his entire career.

- Kansas will be a Final 4 contender.

Wasn't Dickson the one that was involved in the whole blaming Baylor for Matt Myers not going to MI and instead going to IL?

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

You just listed reasons 4,000,001-4,000,005 as to why he went to KU.

---

Underrated po$t.

Bakersdozen said:

---

Wasn't Dickson the one that was involved in the whole blaming Baylor for Matt Myers not going to MI and instead going to IL?

---

He criticized Michigan for how they handle NIL. He basically said at Kentucky you sign and get NIL money, but at Michigan you sign and have to earn NIL.

Seems like Michigan is doing it correctly. In reality, everything must be earned. Too many people give a sense of entitlement & have difficulties dealing with reality.

Reality is not optional.

historian said:

---

Seems like Michigan is doing it correctly. In reality, everything must be earned. Too many people give a sense of entitlement & have difficulties dealing with reality.

Reality is not optional.

---

Seems to me, the reality is players can get paid upfront from other schools without performing first. Seems like you may be struggling with that reality because you probably had to work before you got paid

Jorkel said:

---

historian said:

---

Seems like Michigan is doing it correctly. In reality, everything must be earned. Too many people give a sense of entitlement & have difficulties dealing with reality.

Reality is not optional.

---

Seems to me, the reality is players can get paid upfront from other schools without performing first. Seems like you may be struggling with that reality because you probably had to work before you got paid

---

I am guessing if your star player doesn't perform, he keeps the money anyway... all of this while maintaining his amateur status...

Some people take shortcuts & get things unearned, but they generally end up with lots of troubles in the long run. There is always Job's dilemma: the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper. This is a variation on that old tale.

TWD 1974 said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

historian said:

---

Seems like Michigan is doing it correctly. In reality, everything must be earned. Too many people give a sense of entitlement & have difficulties dealing with reality.

Reality is not optional.

---

Seems to me, the reality is players can get paid upfront from other schools without performing first. Seems like you may be struggling with that reality because you probably had to work before you got paid

---

I am guessing if your star player doesn't perform, he keeps the money anyway... all of this while maintaining his amateur status...

---

If a star player doesn't perform at all they are not a star player. The school didn't technically lose any money. Whatever collective, donors, or company/business did and it ends being a bad investment. However not all NIL requires the player to be the best to be successful, the Cavinder twins were role players but feasted on NIL at Miami

Bakersdozen said:

---

Wasn't Dickson the one that was involved in the whole blaming Baylor for Matt Myers not going to MI and instead going to IL?

---

I don't remember that part but I do remember he was the one who blasted your brother in law, cousin or whatever the relation for being petty and not allowing Terrence Shannon to transfer to Michigan and ending up at Illinois in spite of Shannon's public outcry to attend Michigan.

historian said:

---

Some people take shortcuts & get things unearned, but they generally end up with lots of troubles in the long run. There is always Job's dilemma: the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper. This is a variation on that old tale.

---

I'm not saying you are wrong. In the traditional since employees should get compensated for the work produced. However the world of sports and show business and compensating celebrities does not work the same. Athletes want guaranteed money now and the people cutting the checks are willing to do it if they think it's worth it.

DanaDane said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

Wasn't Dickson the one that was involved in the whole blaming Baylor for Matt Myers not going to MI and instead going to IL?

---

I don't remember that part but I do remember he was the one who blasted your brother in law, cousin or whatever the relation for being petty and not allowing Terrence Shannon to transfer to Michigan and ending up at Illinois in spite of Shannon's public outcry to attend Michigan.

---

You are right. It was Shannon not Mayer. Got confused. Ha!

Jorkel said:

---

historian said:

---

Some people take shortcuts & get things unearned, but they generally end up with lots of troubles in the long run. There is always Job's dilemma: the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper. This is a variation on that old tale.

---

I'm not saying you are wrong. In the traditional since employees should get compensated for the work produced. However the world of sports and show business and compensating celebrities does not work the same. Athletes want guaranteed money now and the people cutting the checks are willing to do it if they think it's worth it.

---

Pay for performance is illegal in NIL right now. You are paying players for their "Names_Image_Likeness". The only performance they have to do is to complete the work they were hired to do...off the court.

However, it appears that even if a P5 teams signs a player to a NIL agreement they don't have to fulfill it. That is what happened at TT this year. Not sure of the legality of it, but for 2 months they decided not to pay a player that was hurt and not playing (pay for performance). In the end, the player threatened to transfer and money was found.

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

Jorkel said:

---

TWD 1974 said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

historian said:

---

Seems like Michigan is doing it correctly. In reality, everything must be earned. Too many people give a sense of entitlement & have difficulties dealing with reality.

Reality is not optional.

---

Seems to me, the reality is players can get paid upfront from other schools without performing first. Seems like you may be struggling with that reality because you probably had to work before you got paid

---

I am guessing if your star player doesn't perform, he keeps the money anyway... all of this while maintaining his amateur status...

---

If a star player doesn't perform at all they are not a star player. The school didn't technically lose any money. Whatever collective, donors, or company/business did and it ends being a bad investment. However not all NIL requires the player to be the best to be successful, the Cavinder twins were role players but feasted on NIL at Miami

---

I should have written that better: I was referring to their performance to earn the NIL money they are given in advance. Because they aren't paid for the performance on the court or field, oh no, that is forbidden.... They are paid enormous money to market to that key demographic: high $$ supporters of the University they now attend. The former is professionalism, and the latter isn't, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

Bakersdozen said:

---

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

---

The schools should be the ones paying the players in the first place. These schools are making tens of millions of dollars in athletic revenue -- nary a cent of which makes it into the players' pockets. They don't really get to cry poor because they might be losing a few potential donations on top of that.

This whole system is a ****ing joke. And it's precisely because the schools hoarded record revenues in the name of "amateurism" for so long, forcing the courts to get involved and create the wild west environment we have now.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

---

The schools should be the ones paying the players in the first place. These schools are making tens of millions of dollars in athletic revenue -- nary a cent of which makes it into the players' pockets. They don't really get to cry poor because they might be losing a few potential donations on top of that.

This whole system is a ****ing joke. And it's precisely because the schools hoarded record revenues in the name of "amateurism" for so long, forcing the courts to get involved and create the wild west environment we have now.

---

Yes, the athletic departments are reaping what they sow.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

---

The schools should be the ones paying the players in the first place. These schools are making tens of millions of dollars in athletic revenue -- nary a cent of which makes it into the players' pockets. They don't really get to cry poor because they might be losing a few potential donations on top of that.

This whole system is a ****ing joke. And it's precisely because the schools hoarded record revenues in the name of "amateurism" for so long, forcing the courts to get involved and create the wild west environment we have now.

---

Well, I respectfully disagree but I come from a different generation. There was a time in my life when people valued a college education. Yes, players work hard, but they have tutors, study hall, free room, free board and more. They get to go to the NFL or other pro-league if they are good enough.

Players hardly need to go to class anymore as they want to get to the NFL as soon as possible. There are so few student-athletes anymore. I used to love college athletics.

Owners and investors have always been the winners. They put the money up, they build the buildings, they negotiate deals, they sell the product and entice players to join in.

I also believe that we should be paying students but going after millions will kill amateur sports in colleges. It already is. You like it? That's fine. Others might not agree but that appears to be what today's society is all about - disagreement.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Yes, the athletic departments are reaping what they sow.

---

Please, elaborate to me how they are "reaping what they sow".

Bakersdozen said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

---

The schools should be the ones paying the players in the first place. These schools are making tens of millions of dollars in athletic revenue -- nary a cent of which makes it into the players' pockets. They don't really get to cry poor because they might be losing a few potential donations on top of that.

This whole system is a ****ing joke. And it's precisely because the schools hoarded record revenues in the name of "amateurism" for so long, forcing the courts to get involved and create the wild west environment we have now.

---

Well, I respectfully disagree but I come from a different generation. There was a time in my life when people valued a college education. Yes, players work hard, but they have tutors, study hall, free room, free board and more. They get to go to the NFL or other pro-league if they are good enough.

Players hardly need to go to class anymore as they want to get to the NFL as soon as possible. There are so few student-athletes anymore. I used to love college athletics.

Owners and investors have always been the winners. They put the money up, they build the buildings, they negotiate deals, they sell the product and entice players to join in.

I also believe that we should be paying students but going after millions will kill amateur sports in colleges. It already is. You like it? That's fine. Others might not agree but that appears to be what today's society is all about - disagreement.

---

People still value a college education. But it's not commensurate compensation given the amount of money these sports are generating.

When schools are raking tens of millions of dollars a year, it's only fair that some of that money trickle down to the players responsible for the product.

It was the adults, not the kids who turned college football into a billion dollar industry by selling out the student-athlete model to television networks and advertisers. The adults don't get to turn around blame the kids for being greedy now for wanting fair compensation for their efforts.

How much of that money should trickle down? It is like reparations...how do you ever make that decision? I think it would be impossible to decide. Instead, let's just pay for play and that way athletes make money like it is now?

This is not money going to athletes. Bigger schools with more money win. SEC/BIG are using big TV contracts and heavy donor base to separate. After separation, watch a lot of this NIL money to dry up.

Bakersdozen said:

---

How much of that money should trickle down? It is like reparations...how do you ever make that decision? I think it would be impossible to decide. Instead, let's just pay for play and that way athletes make money like it is now?

This is not money going to athletes. Bigger schools with more money win. SEC/BIG are using big TV contracts and heavy donor base to separate. After separation, watch a lot of this NIL money to dry up.

---

Certainly more than $0 -- or whatever cost of living stipend they eventually arrived at.

As more and more money was pumped into these sports and generated through them, there should have been conversations going on about how to make a college athletics model work in a modern environment. Instead, those making all the money hid behind "amateurism" and did literally nothing.

That's why we're in the spot we're in currently. Because those making the money didn't want to share it with those generating it. NIL, as currently applied, is utter nonsense. But it's the natural -- and, eventually, court-mandated -- response to a complete and intentional lack of action on the institutions' part to create a fair system that passed some of these record revenues to the athletes.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

vanillabryce said:

---

If that's your position then I'd argue they had earned by their play on the court in high school or wherever they're transferring in from.

The market dictates compensation. Once awarded, it is in fact earned.

---

You can look at it that way but that is not how NIL was established. It was decided that Universities were taking advantage of student athletes by selling their name-image-likeness in the form of video money, fund raising, t-shirts/jerseys and much more. That is why NIL was created.

Now, if you want to apply it to an athlete who you believe is a great player you can do that, but NIL was created to push some of the money made by Universities back to the student-athlete. That is one of the problems with NIL - the way it is being used was not the original intention, but it is the wild west out there with NCAA right now.

Another big disadvantage of NIL, money that used to go to the university is now going to pay players. Schools are hurting over funds that are now misdirected to players and not the athletic departments.

---

The schools should be the ones paying the players in the first place. These schools are making tens of millions of dollars in athletic revenue -- nary a cent of which makes it into the players' pockets. They don't really get to cry poor because they might be losing a few potential donations on top of that.

This whole system is a ****ing joke. And it's precisely because the schools hoarded record revenues in the name of "amateurism" for so long, forcing the courts to get involved and create the wild west environment we have now.

---

Older generations ate that up. The cognitive dissonance among them is baffling. When billion dollar contracts are signed, when multiple tv "partners" are bidding huge numbers for rights, when everything is being sold and advertisers are being pitched.. it's big business.

It's staring everyone right in the face. Yet the logical step you described is actively railed against. Obviously commissioners and presidents fought it in self interest. But the older alum love to pretend this sport has purity and is sacred while that ended long ago.


The lack of valid argument comes across in every thread like this. And it appears to be a clear generational divide

Quote:

---

It's staring everyone right in the face. Yet the logical step you described is actively railed against. Obviously commissioners and presidents fought it in self interest. But the older alum love to pretend this sport has purity and is sacred while that ended long ago.

---

I'm probably one of the oldest posters here and I never thought the sport had purity lol. aggy Fedex, SMU, UT loading the bench to keep others from enjoying that talent, Rice not requiring players to attend class, etc. etc.

There was no ESPN, NYT's or other media to expose what was happening in those days.

bear2be2 said:

---

Bakersdozen said:

---

How much of that money should trickle down? It is like reparations...how do you ever make that decision? I think it would be impossible to decide. Instead, let's just pay for play and that way athletes make money like it is now?

This is not money going to athletes. Bigger schools with more money win. SEC/BIG are using big TV contracts and heavy donor base to separate. After separation, watch a lot of this NIL money to dry up.

---

Certainly more than $0 -- or whatever cost of living stipend they eventually arrived at.

As more and more money was pumped into these sports and generated through them, there should have been conversations going on about how to make a college athletics model work in a modern environment. Instead, those making all the money hid behind "amateurism" and did literally nothing.

That's why we're in the spot we're in currently. Because those making the money didn't want to share it with those generating it. NIL, as currently applied, is utter nonsense. But it's the natural -- and, eventually, court-mandated -- response to a complete and intentional lack of action on the institutions' part to create a fair system that passed some of these record revenues to the athletes.

---

This greed didn't happen overnight. There was video games that entered the market with player's likeness. No one anticipated the financial impact of that.. Jersey's with names on it for sale. College football became a much bigger business with TV contracts. I am sure every college President wanted to hang on to the money - sports programs are expensive.

Amateur status forbade sharing it. There was a time in the Olympics when professional athletes were unable to participate as well, but change doesn't always happen so quickly.

NIL has nothing to do with this honestly, or very little. NIL is an attempt by large donors to gain access by paying players. It is a way to buy success for their program. it used to be illegal and SMU got the death penalty for it.

Donors of NIL money don't care about these athletes more than they used to. They care about their team wining. They care about access and involvement. In some cases, big donors have taken over control of athletic programs. Boone Pickens is a good example. There are many more.

I know you want to have some sort of morality around NIL/Transfer Portal. It was done at last to avoid a Supreme Court ruling. At any time, the college Presidents could fix the issues, but there is a new way to win. Hold all the money cards in the name of paying players what we owe them. That is just naive.