NIL War Chest | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

NIL War Chest

I am not familiar with the others, as they aren’t promoted very well. So if the school is gathering that much ($3-4M) like other top schools then I retract. My point remains, we need to do better.
They aren’t going after people like you. Those collectives are focused on whales.
 
Mr. Adler & Mr. Shaw need some better sources.
Jamie Shaw is one of the most plugged-in analysts out there. My article (from more than a month ago) quoted Mark Hayes regarding what Orange United is targeting in NIL. Apologies, but what do you mean when you say I need a better source? Who should I have talked to about Orange United other than Mark, who is the general manager?
 
Jamie Shaw is one of the most plugged-in analysts out there. My article (from more than a month ago) quoted Mark Hayes regarding what Orange United is targeting in NIL. Apologies, but what do you mean when you say I need a better source? Who should I have talked to about Orange United other than Mark, who is the general manager?
$2-2.5M is not what collectives should aim to have for men’s basketball per year. I don’t think is plausible $1.5M for a Top 25 program. That number is way low.

If there are other collectives that additively make $3-4M (and probably more, if we are honest), then fine. But if we are settling for $2-2.5M for a top basketball program, our odds of attracting top talent aren’t great. Doesn’t mean you can’t be strategic and get lucky, but talent wins at the end of the day.

Additionally, I never said anything about Mark Hayes and his numbers. I said we should be aiming higher than what he has stated. You’re conflating the two.
 
$2-2.5M is not what collectives should aim to have for men’s basketball per year. I don’t think is plausible $1.5M for a Top 25 program. That number is way low.

If there are other collectives that additively make $3-4M (and probably more, if we are honest), then fine. But if we are settling for $2-2.5M for a top basketball program, our odds of attracting top talent aren’t great. Doesn’t mean you can’t be strategic and get lucky, but talent wins at the end of the day.

Additionally, I never said anything about Mark Hayes and his numbers. I said we should be aiming higher than what he has stated. You’re conflating the two.

“The top NIL budget at each Power Six school is around $3,000,000. Everyone else fits in after that,” a Big 12 coach said. Along the same lines, a coach in the ACC told me, “I’ve heard teams having over $2 million to work with.”
 
$2-2.5M is not what collectives should aim to have for men’s basketball per year. I don’t think is plausible $1.5M for a Top 25 program. That number is way low.

If there are other collectives that additively make $3-4M (and probably more, if we are honest), then fine. But if we are settling for $2-2.5M for a top basketball program, our odds of attracting top talent aren’t great. Doesn’t mean you can’t be strategic and get lucky, but talent wins at the end of the day.

Additionally, I never said anything about Mark Hayes and his numbers. I said we should be aiming higher than what he has stated. You’re conflating the two.
Again, don't be confused by thinking that Orange United's goal is the sum total of NIL money available to SU Men's Basketball. There are other significant sources of funding at Red's disposal. I really can;t share more than that, but others on this forum can if they choose to do so.
 
Again, don't be confused by thinking that Orange United's goal is the sum total of NIL money available to SU Men's Basketball. There are other significant sources of funding at Red's disposal. I really can;t share more than that, but others on this forum can if they choose to do so.
I understand - and if that was clear to everyone, I don't think there would be much angst.

The fact that this is the only group that is external facing is why people have more questions.
 
“The top NIL budget at each Power Six school is around $3,000,000. Everyone else fits in after that,” a Big 12 coach said. Along the same lines, a coach in the ACC told me, “I’ve heard teams having over $2 million to work with.”
Vague. "Over $2M" can mean a lot of things. Villanova spent over $3M last year. Close to if not at $4M. They just spent $400K on a PG from a mid-major. And added two other players that probably commanded the same if not more. Their roster will once again be over $3M this year.

Kansas spent over $1M on Dickinson - you don't think their bill for the remaining roster isn't over $2.5M? I certainly do.

There are MANY schools above $3M for basketball. I'm sure there are some at $1.5M. Not many are competing at the highest level.

A lot of unknown, but if the top end of the market players is $600-800K (and more), and the top teams have 3-4 of those players, in what world is the remaining 8-9 scholarship players getting nothing?
 
Vague. "Over $2M" can mean a lot of things. Villanova spent over $3M last year. Close to if not at $4M. They just spent $400K on a PG from a mid-major. And added two other players that probably commanded the same if not more. Their roster will once again be over $3M this year.

Kansas spent over $1M on Dickinson - you don't think their bill for the remaining roster isn't over $2.5M? I certainly do.

There are MANY schools above $3M for basketball. I'm sure there are some at $1.5M. Not many are competing at the highest level.

A lot of unknown, but if the top end of the market players is $600-800K (and more), and the top teams have 3-4 of those players, in what world is the remaining 8-9 scholarship players getting nothing?

Don’t know where you get your numbers from but I don’t believe them. Every article on nova I read said they spent 3m. Which isn’t surprising since football isn’t a real factor. And the article talked about averages and ranges. Not a specific cherry picked school.
 
Don’t know where you get your numbers from but I don’t believe them. Every article on nova I read said they spent 3m. Which isn’t surprising since football isn’t a real factor. And the article talked about averages and ranges. Not a specific cherry picked school.
Don't believe them. That's fine. Believe what you want. I really don't care. It was asked what the number should be, and I know $2M is not enough to field a Top 25 team given what we're competing with.

Once we have some success (if we have some success)? Hopefully it's a destination like it was for such a long time.
 
Jamie Shaw is one of the most plugged-in analysts out there. My article (from more than a month ago) quoted Mark Hayes regarding what Orange United is targeting in NIL. Apologies, but what do you mean when you say I need a better source? Who should I have talked to about Orange United other than Mark, who is the general manager?
Please do not let facts get inthe way of a continuing bad narrative
 
Last edited:
$2-2.5M is not what collectives should aim to have for men’s basketball per year. I don’t think is plausible $1.5M for a Top 25 program. That number is way low.

If there are other collectives that additively make $3-4M (and probably more, if we are honest), then fine. But if we are settling for $2-2.5M for a top basketball program, our odds of attracting top talent aren’t great. Doesn’t mean you can’t be strategic and get lucky, but talent wins at the end of the day.

Additionally, I never said anything about Mark Hayes and his numbers. I said we should be aiming higher than what he has stated. You’re conflating the two.
We must be misunderstanding one another. All good. I do agree that as time carries on, SU will need $3M-$4M in NIL dollars for men's basketball, although that may end up coming from more than one source (i.e., not just Orange United).
 
Pleased onto let facts get inthe way of a continuing bad narrative
Start winning games and attract top transfers, not losing top targets to Georgia, and the narrative will go away. And literally nobody will care.
 
Start winning games and attract top transfers, not losing top targets to Georgia, and the narrative will go away. And literally nobody will care.
The "narrative" only goes away when you decide the parameters of what makes it go away? Interesting thought process.

I can tell you that there are posters who have responded in this thread who have well-sourced information.

FWIW, my understanding is also that we are in very good shape with NIL for both football AND basketball. But, we are not going to set the market or spend without a clear plan on how to maximize the funds.
 
The "narrative" only goes away when you decide the parameters of what makes it go away? Interesting thought process.

I can tell you that there are posters who have responded in this thread who have well-sourced information.

FWIW, my understanding is also that we are in very good shape with NIL for both football AND basketball. But, we are not going to set the market or spend without a clear plan on how to maximize the funds.
We could very well be. It is certainly easy to infer that football is in great shape, given the success we have had at all levels of recruiting -- most specifically transfers.

Basketball leaves a lot to be desired and while we have made a couple of additions this offseason, it's tough to see the path to us being a Top 15-20 program given we aren't going after or even interested in the same players as schools we used to compete with for talent -- UConn being the simplest one I can point to.

I'll shut up now and let it play out -- if we do enough winning, none of this stuff matters and a lot more trust would be developed.
 
IMG_7644.gif
 
Personally I think this is great as it needs to be a community wide effort to make it sustainable over the long term (and this is a low friction way to make it possible). No way a handful of super successful individuals or businesses can carry the water over the long term while others free ride.
 
I love basketball but it's gross to care more about basketball than say poor children. We should come together for them like this.
Yeah I don't want to be a Debbie Downer but I am not comfortable with the priority NIL fan support is proposed to have.

I posted this elsewhere but communities have real problems that more dollars can actually fix, or at least mitigate.

But why take care of hungry kids when we can see monster dunks or sweet touchdown runs, I guess.
 
Yeah I don't want to be a Debbie Downer but I am not comfortable with the priority NIL fan support is proposed to have.

I posted this elsewhere but communities have real problems that more dollars can actually fix, or at least mitigate.

But why take care of hungry kids when we can see monster dunks or sweet touchdown runs, I guess.
Totally get your point but some may feel their taxes should be more directed towards social good leaving the rounding up benefit to NIL or other mundane pursuits.
 
The CNYCF (Central New York Community Foundation) could certainly jump on the bandwagon. Perhaps far more establishments have this optiob and everything rounded up is somehow split. Imagine Wegman’s providing this option. Bottom line, the NIL piece does not preclude others to be part of this round up program. If you have a lot more businesses participating the amount received by any one recipient organization may be greater than the dilution such organization experiences through a sharing formula.
 
Yeah I don't want to be a Debbie Downer but I am not comfortable with the priority NIL fan support is proposed to have.

I posted this elsewhere but communities have real problems that more dollars can actually fix, or at least mitigate.

But why take care of hungry kids when we can see monster dunks or sweet touchdown runs, I guess.

Love where your heart is here but honestly the reality is (coming from working in the C suite of a non profit) and years of working closely with them- people just don’t like throwing their money towards agencies that they feel do limited amounts of good ( not saying it’s accurate). Siphoning money off of things like this doesn’t get those agencies anywhere and honestly this probably raises very little for this purpose all the same.
 
Love where your heart is here but honestly the reality is (coming from working in the C suite of a non profit) and years of working closely with them- people just don’t like throwing their money towards agencies that they feel do limited amounts of good ( not saying it’s accurate). Siphoning money off of things like this doesn’t get those agencies anywhere and honestly this probably raises very little for this purpose all the same.
I hear you. I'm not necessarily advocating for more giving to agencies.

It's layered. Society has complex problems.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,385
Messages
4,771,993
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
803
Total visitors
968


Top Bottom