Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 5385367, member: 966"] We probably agree a lot on the topic of NIL. It disgusts me, but... your MYTH 1 argument is faulty. Your premise seems to be that players are undeserving of payment because the value of their contribution A) is unknowable; B) is not commensurate with the value of fluctuating program revenues. You couch this all as being a matter of Facts, not Emotion. While you may be citing facts, you are also drawing conclusions, which are not supported by those facts. I'm not going to delve into roots and causes of Nebraska income. But, supposing a new tv contract were introduced, paying Nebraska twice as much as before. If one could argue that Nebraska making 100 million is reasonable, and the players on that team contribute to that value, just because the value of that contract doubles without a commensurate performance increase does not mean those players contribute to ZERO, simply because we can't draw an association curve. It simply means the value changed. Does it mean those players 'deserve' to be paid twice as much? No. Unless the rest of the market dictates that's what must be done in order to preserve a roster. "The quality of our players have [sic] almost nothing to do with the revenue generated by the school." Well, that's not a statement that validates your 'thesis statement.' Ignoring the oversimplification of revenues and not discussing losses/expenses, you still need to consider what happens if you don't pay. I'm not even sure what you're arguing on that front. That individual schools decide not to? Then they field uncompetitive teams and their revenues shrink, no? That the entire NCAA change to go against court rulings? What? Even in your opening salvo, you represent that the two examples are at " opposite ends of the spectrum." So, obviously you accept that there would be two (or more) examples that invalidate your argument. Does the math have to be 1:1 for every program in order for the model to be valid? Isn't it more true to say that: Teams have revenues. Players are contributors to that revenue, because without them there would be no revenue. If, back to Nebraska, you accept that the 100 million is 'true' value and 200 million is not, how do you wipe away the 100 million, just because your personal Win/Share calculations don't compute easily? Isn't this all just a 'business decision' for each individual program? If Nebraska had been fine with paying each player 50k when they were making 100 million, or if they decided to hold at 50k because the team still sucked even though they had more money in the coffers, or if they decided to pay 100k because they wanted the team to not suck anymore, isn't that just 'business?' Another inconsistency in your post concerns your immediate exclusion of "a big state school in the SEC or Big Ten." That's a lot of programs to exclude from a 'fact-only argument.' The economic levels may be different there, but the way math works is still the same. Myth 2: You are conflating value of a player in one circumstance with the value of that same 'person' in a different circumstance. Bacot can very easily be 'worth' 2 million to North Carolina and $40,000 to a G league team. Apples to Oranges. His contribution to a Memphis G League teams cannot be compared to his contribution and impact to the Carolina college team. You cannot apply those numbers across leagues. You may as well be arguing that an actor in a blockbuster film doesn't deserve $15million for the film because he only makes $100k in a Broadway play. I'm going to (mostly) ignore the crack about the "ticket out of the ghetto." [Who on our team is from the ghetto?] Other Myths: A "great deal" should be a clue that you're not really speaking about 'just the facts, m'am.' That's highly editorial. Lebron getting only 10 million instead of 60 could be regarded as still being a "great deal" unless the system could support the 60 million. Unfortunately, the systems are supporting the astronomical money, because consumers have been manipulated into paying for it all. Yes, NIL is a disaster. Yes, "NIL" is inappropriately named at this point. Yes, i agree that college athletics should be about a collegiate experience, and that the players only build their NBA/pro value on the shoulders of the schools. But, that ship has sailed, and if we're going to make cogent, sound arguments to support that "emotion," it should be with a higher level of logic. Even then, though... again, the ship has sailed. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?