Mitch on NIL
- Thread starter Victorbmyboy
- Start date
Sounds like sour grapes. They won’t be a player and he knows it.
A bit hypocritical from the Pres of a university that not only covered for an athlete they needed in a big tournament but essentially victim blamed a middle aged female restaurant manager calling her report false.
Summary?
Seems that the story which I assume is critical of pay for play is ironically stuck behind a paywall.
Basically crying about how NIL is pay for play…political ramble…blasting schools. Yadda
I just saw post after post by PUkes still trying to say schools pay big money. They still can’t wrap their head around it. Schools don’t pay. Lol now it ROI and they probably get kick backs, free tickets….yadda yadda yadda.
I'm sure they think Mitch is a brave leader who will usher in a new era where everyone forgoes NIL for the good of the sport.
Mitch being against NIL will likely be a setback for Purdue and their athletic program. Early adopter programs will be getting a leg up on this, and Im happy to see IU has embraced all this NIL stuff early.
As usual, he’s not wrong.
Saban said basically the same thing. And he, too, was not wrong. They can put as much lipstick as they want on this pig. It’ll still be a pig.
Yeah, that’s true. Technically. But it’s clearly an in-kind gift…which would have equivalent outcomes if the sponsors wrote a donation check to the university as a pass-through to the athlete.
That said, the sponsors are nominally getting endorsement benefit from the expenditures. But it could be a tough thing for a publicly-held company to justify under fiduciary and GAAP rules.
I should add that it’s also possible they could justify the cost for the benefit received. I don’t think it’s a one-size-fits-all equation.
If you take an athlete who has a great deal of positive notoriety and standing (say….Arch Manning), it’s possible the juice could truly be worth the squeeze.
That’s not what I’m saying. They can’t pass through to the school or from the school to athlete. That’s what the PUkes are implying. They also say nobody will get ROI etc.
The plantation owners didn't much care for having to pay for their laborers, either.
Purdue and Mitch didn’t take NIL seriously. They are getting ready to get their teeth kicked in. How many student athletes are now kicking themselves for going to a school that is behind. Sure it’s on the Athlete to get the deals. The network is just starting.
If schools like IU and Purdue were struggling to keep up with the true powerhouse schools in the conference, this NIL deal has put them back to the Stone Age. Why on earth if you are an elite athlete would you not go to a big name school that promotes your image and makes NIL deals outside the school more lucrative? The Big Ten has been good for IU financially. Unfortunately, IU is also one of the high priced “punching bags” for the heavyweights in the Big Ten.
You are going to see schools opt out of NIL dealings and will form a new league. A bunch of schools ate
Not backing this pay for play. Even ND’s jack Swarbrick came out against it. ND is giving NIL deals but he predicts the end of college sports and ncaa.
Not backing this pay for play. Even ND’s jack Swarbrick came out against it. ND is giving NIL deals but he predicts the end of college sports and ncaa.
Guys @Victorbmyboy is the covert on NIL and you speak out who’s t it you are an idiot according to him. To many heavy hitters speaking out against the pay for play model happening. You will see a change. I guarantee it
No, it is what it is whether somebody hates it or embraces it.
Don’t get me wrong. NIL, in some form, isn’t going away. I’m not even necessarily saying it should.
But it didn’t take long at all for it to become a de facto pay-to-play arrangement, in lieu of the NCAA being able to have a de jure pay-to-play arrangement.
Lol. Are you really comparing amateur scholarship college athletics to…slavery?
There’s no shortage of dumb things said on this forum. This one ranks up there.
No it’s the Nancy’s who keep beating a drum. The heavy hitters are going to get equalized somewhat. Keep going blah blah blah.
Some deals might be remunerative. But I’d guess that most of them will not. It would be a tough thing to quantify, really. But, let’s face it, getting promotional value and driving brand awareness etc. isn’t what is really going to drive this.
No he’s not. You can’t see what he’s saying?
Ok..well you don’t have to be a dick when someone doesn’t agree with it. A ton of big names are speaking out
Of course they are. They like it the way it was. Getting every recruit they want. They know the old game.
Also, my point about the pass-through is that the substantial outcomes are the same for all parties either way.
In other words, it’s technically true that the sponsors, not the school, are paying the bill. It’s also technically true that they’re buying something with their money that is more than getting a particular kid to a particular school.
But, in a practical sense, it’s an in-kind gift to the school — at least that part of it that can’t be shown to have returned them value commensurate to the investment.
But that is, in truth, a secondary goal here. And anybody with half a brain knows it. Jimbo Fisher knows it - but he just doesn’t like the insinuation that what he’s doing is untoward.
I get it. But something that’s gainful being permissible is different than it being straight-up what it’s represented as being.
Of course Saban was right. And if I were Jimbo Fisher, I wouldn’t have denied it or screamed about it. I’d have just said: hey, these are the new rules…don’t blame me for playing by them better than you did, Nick.
Saban is just sour and sees that times are changing. He’s not going to get 4 deep with 4 and 5* very soon. He will still get his.
No. It’s not as wide spread as you all claim. It’s not like there is 30 Nigel pack deals in basketball. There was literally 2-3 big contracts. Football is different but it will eventually settle down.
I’m talking bball and football. This pay for play model happening is not what was approved for the NIL. It has turned into buying transfers and recruits which isn’t good for the the game(s)
Maybe.
But that doesn’t mean he was wrong. Because he wasn’t wrong.
Fisher resented what he said, because A&M didn’t break any current rules in buying their recruiting class.
But that’s exactly what they did.
He was just comparing the fact that plantation owners and college athletics were making a living off of free labor. Not saying college athletes were akin to slavery. Analogies don’t need to be 1:1 to be effective.
I knew someone would step up with that one. Congrats.
