EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,427
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on May 2, 2022 13:32:14 GMT -5
I know Aidan says he has “multiple sources,” but I just can’t buy the 200K. I have no.basis for saying so other than . . . Georgetown. Which part do you doubt - the amount of money ($200,000), or that we're apparently offering pay for play NIL deals like everyone else? I don't doubt the latter - this staff is desperate. I doubt both to be honest, any donor(s) willing to play 200k are very big supporters seems to me folks would immediately know who they are right? |
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,407 
|
Post by iowa80 on May 2, 2022 13:35:30 GMT -5
Ron Bailey also said that GU “cobbled together some NIL” for Ward, but LSU outbid them still. Didn’t provide numbers like Aidan did but seems to add further evidence to GU offering an NIL package directly to Ward during this process. Again, "GU" can't offer "an NIL package directly to Ward during this process". That is blatantly against NCAA rules and Georgetown's posted university policy on GUHoyas.com. An entity outside of "GU" can offer an NIL package directly to Ward, but it's not supposed to be in return for him choosing to attend Georgetown. Of course, that latter clause we know is not how this is playing out in practice, see Miami and John Ruiz. However, Ruiz and his companies are entiities outside the University of Miami providing the NIL dollars. Who are the outside entities providing $200K worth of NIL dollars to entice Ward to attend Georgetown?Help me out. Can the school facilitate a NIL package in that it seeks out sponsors, who in turn contact the player? I’m guessing yes. And while I’m at it, it seems odd that players can apparently have NIL agents, but must leave school if they have an agent for the NBA draft. |
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,642
|
Post by prhoya on May 2, 2022 13:55:32 GMT -5
Ron Bailey also said that GU “cobbled together some NIL” for Ward, but LSU outbid them still. Didn’t provide numbers like Aidan did but seems to add further evidence to GU offering an NIL package directly to Ward during this process. Again, "GU" can't offer "an NIL package directly to Ward during this process". That is blatantly against NCAA rules and Georgetown's posted university policy on GUHoyas.com. An entity outside of "GU" can offer an NIL package directly to Ward, but it's not supposed to be in return for him choosing to attend Georgetown. Of course, that latter clause we know is not how this is playing out in practice, see Miami and John Ruiz. However, Ruiz and his companies are entiities outside the University of Miami providing the NIL dollars. Who are the outside entities providing $200K worth of NIL dollars to entice Ward to attend Georgetown?Business is good at Wisey’s! |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 2, 2022 14:25:47 GMT -5
To go dorky for a moment, this is like campaign finance. You cannot solicit unlimited amounts from individuals as a candidate, but shady non-profits can as long as they don't "coordinate," even though everyone knows such coordination happens anyway (often indirectly, so it's technically legal, but it's still coordination).
If Georgetown is not allowed to provide NIL money, I am sure they are not technically doing it directly. But, if anybody thinks these schools whose players are getting NIL money have no contact (even if indirect) with the donors, then I have a bridge to sell somebody.
I would actually rather that NIL money flowed through universities, because then at least there would be some accountability as to who is providing and receiving funds. Now, everything is essentially farmed out to alumni who can do things and it sounds as if the deals don't even need to be reported or made public, which in my mind, is a huge red flag for the future.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,510
|
Post by SSHoya on May 2, 2022 14:39:26 GMT -5
To go dorky for a moment, this is like campaign finance. You cannot solicit unlimited amounts from individuals as a candidate, but shady non-profits can as long as they don't "coordinate," even though everyone knows such coordination happens anyway (often indirectly, so it's technically legal, but it's still coordination). If Georgetown is not allowed to provide NIL money, I am sure they are not technically doing it directly. But, if anybody thinks these schools whose players are getting NIL money have no contact (even if indirect) with the donors, then I have a bridge to sell somebody. I would actually rather that NIL money flowed through universities, because then at least there would be some accountability as to who is providing and receiving funds. Now, everything is essentially farmed out to alumni who can do things and it sounds as if the deals don't even need to be reported or made public, which in my mind, is a huge red flag for the future. I will start reviewing newly-incorporated LLCs in Delaware. If I find one registered as RT Inc. LLC, I'll let you know.  |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,427
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on May 2, 2022 15:08:33 GMT -5
To go dorky for a moment, this is like campaign finance. You cannot solicit unlimited amounts from individuals as a candidate, but shady non-profits can as long as they don't "coordinate," even though everyone knows such coordination happens anyway (often indirectly, so it's technically legal, but it's still coordination). If Georgetown is not allowed to provide NIL money, I am sure they are not technically doing it directly. But, if anybody thinks these schools whose players are getting NIL money have no contact (even if indirect) with the donors, then I have a bridge to sell somebody. I would actually rather that NIL money flowed through universities, because then at least there would be some accountability as to who is providing and receiving funds. Now, everything is essentially farmed out to alumni who can do things and it sounds as if the deals don't even need to be reported or made public, which in my mind, is a huge red flag for the future. Unlike campaign finance contributions going into a general fund, the NIL money is going directly to an individual who'll be responsible for the taxes on the money.. The players will also have to provide a service for the money, its not free.. Bottom line there has to be some transparency to the NIL regardless of who's paying or receiving |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 2, 2022 16:03:02 GMT -5
To go dorky for a moment, this is like campaign finance. You cannot solicit unlimited amounts from individuals as a candidate, but shady non-profits can as long as they don't "coordinate," even though everyone knows such coordination happens anyway (often indirectly, so it's technically legal, but it's still coordination). If Georgetown is not allowed to provide NIL money, I am sure they are not technically doing it directly. But, if anybody thinks these schools whose players are getting NIL money have no contact (even if indirect) with the donors, then I have a bridge to sell somebody. I would actually rather that NIL money flowed through universities, because then at least there would be some accountability as to who is providing and receiving funds. Now, everything is essentially farmed out to alumni who can do things and it sounds as if the deals don't even need to be reported or made public, which in my mind, is a huge red flag for the future. Unlike campaign finance contributions going into a general fund, the NIL money is going directly to an individual who'll be responsible for the taxes on the money.. The players will also have to provide a service for the money, its not free.. Bottom line there has to be some transparency to the NIL regardless of who's paying or receiving I agree it's not a perfect analogy. And yes, the players do need to provide a service for the money, but from what I have read in many instances it amounts to nothing more than token appearances, etc. The real issue is that these players are basically being paid a talent acquisition fee, they aren't being paid for their name, image, or likeness. If they were getting money for the latter, the amounts involved would be much lower. Most of these kids aren't getting paid because their name, image, and likeness are worth the amount they are receiving, but rather because a rich donor wants to get good kids to enroll at their school. In principle, I think NIL payments (that truly reflect NIL) would be great, but in practice the system is being used for talent acquisition fees, instead. I totally agree on transparency. Every deal should be public, the amounts should be public, and the source of the donors should be public. The money should not be able to be shadily funneled through LLCs, etc. This is well within the NCAA's ability to regulate, I would think. |
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,376
|
Post by SDHoya on May 2, 2022 16:03:22 GMT -5
As I noted a while back, and forgive my SAT analogy---NIL is to Pay for Play, as medicinal marijuana is to recreational marijuana. By that I mean, in theory, NIL is a separate, more limited ability for student-athletes to monetize their likenesses. While a handful of student athletes may in fact have substantial value in marketing that local burger chain, or a shoe company, etc.--in reality most NIL deals (at least in the revenue sports) will not really be true endorsement deals--they will be pay for play under a different moniker and with a wink and a nod. I.e., no one really believes Nigel Pack's image adds substantial value to the Life Wallet brand, just as no one really believed my buddy in Pasadena needed that premium kush for his "back pain".
This is obviously why the NCAA resisted NIL for so long. Even so, the NCAA had an opportunity to at least make an attempt at regulating NIL to keep it somewhat separate from pay for play. Instead, they chose to cover their eyes and put their fingers in their ears, and advise member institutions to figure it out for themselves. And---SHOCK---this is the result. To be fair, determining bright line rules for this would be difficult, if not impossible. For example, let's say Nigel Pack appears on a billboard in Coral Gardens advertising Life Wallet. Is that really worth $800k? Probably not, and most of us would say that even if Pack does some promotion for Life Wallet, the true motivation of the payment is that Ruiz wants the U to have a really good point guard. But is the NCAA really going to be able to determine what fair market value is for Nigel Pack's image? How do you even begin to create an objective rubric for determining mens rea?
Its fairly clear that under the "spirit" of NIL, schools' role should be at most to document what deals their student athletes receive, and perhaps advise against engaging in deals that smell too strongly of "pay for play". It clearly should not be actively packaging "NIL" money in order to incentivize a kid to play for State U.
But to the extent the "spirit" ever existed, its dead and buried. So now, either the NCAA has to go back and fix this, or the NCAA has to just drop the pretense and concede that the athletes in revenue sports are employees and can be paid and be put under contract. But of course at that point, how could a non-profit institution dedicated to higher education justify managing and funding a professional sports franchise?
|
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on May 2, 2022 17:59:41 GMT -5
False. 2003 has no agenda. All I asked was whether Georgetown could directly get involved in NIL. I have no idea how I am involved in this discussion at all, so moving on. To bring it back to the thread, I am kind of surprised that Georgetown facilitating $200K of NIL to Ward isn't getting more attention. It raises the question of what, if any, NIL money is going Murray's way. I find it hard to believe that we would have facilitated $200K for Ward, and Murray gets nothing. You really want to be part of that Anti Ewing-Thompson club don't you. You're not part of it and that is a good thing. I'm giving you high praise for your character and you always take it the wrong way. |
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by iowa80 on May 2, 2022 18:07:13 GMT -5
As I noted a while back, and forgive my SAT analogy---NIL is to Pay for Play, as medicinal marijuana is to recreational marijuana. By that I mean, in theory, NIL is a separate, more limited ability for student-athletes to monetize their likenesses. While a handful of student athletes may in fact have substantial value in marketing that local burger chain, or a shoe company, etc.--in reality most NIL deals (at least in the revenue sports) will not really be true endorsement deals--they will be pay for play under a different moniker and with a wink and a nod. I.e., no one really believes Nigel Pack's image adds substantial value to the Life Wallet brand, just as no one really believed my buddy in Pasadena needed that premium kush for his "back pain". This is obviously why the NCAA resisted NIL for so long. Even so, the NCAA had an opportunity to at least make an attempt at regulating NIL to keep it somewhat separate from pay for play. Instead, they chose to cover their eyes and put their fingers in their ears, and advise member institutions to figure it out for themselves. And---SHOCK---this is the result. To be fair, determining bright line rules for this would be difficult, if not impossible. For example, let's say Nigel Pack appears on a billboard in Coral Gardens advertising Life Wallet. Is that really worth $800k? Probably not, and most of us would say that even if Pack does some promotion for Life Wallet, the true motivation of the payment is that Ruiz wants the U to have a really good point guard. But is the NCAA really going to be able to determine what fair market value is for Nigel Pack's image? How do you even begin to create an objective rubric for determining mens rea? Its fairly clear that under the "spirit" of NIL, schools' role should be at most to document what deals their student athletes receive, and perhaps advise against engaging in deals that smell too strongly of "pay for play". It clearly should not be actively packaging "NIL" money in order to incentivize a kid to play for State U. But to the extent the "spirit" ever existed, its dead and buried. So now, either the NCAA has to go back and fix this, or the NCAA has to just drop the pretense and concede that the athletes in revenue sports are employees and can be paid and be put under contract. But of course at that point, how could a non-profit institution dedicated to higher education justify managing and funding a professional sports franchise? Sometimes a "like" just isn't good enough. Precisely. This has been mentioned elsewhere but an early step should, and, in fact, has to be, a registry of NIL payments--school, amount, player, "sponsor." I don't see any legal issues with that, and it would not be hard to implement. Do it. |
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,659
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 2, 2022 19:15:43 GMT -5
I assume that NIL money constitutes taxable income and quarterly estimated taxes have to be paid on it.
Over/under on the percentage of NIL recipients who understand and will do that?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 2, 2022 19:22:44 GMT -5
But to the extent the "spirit" ever existed, its dead and buried. So now, either the NCAA has to go back and fix this, or the NCAA has to just drop the pretense and concede that the athletes in revenue sports are employees and can be paid and be put under contract. But of course at that point, how could a non-profit institution dedicated to higher education justify managing and funding a professional sports franchise? Once a kid is making $400,000 a year, you are not putting that Genie back in the bottle to make all athletes employees and pay them some salary. That's over and done with, and believing that you can corral this in and come up with something where non-football schools can compete on an equal footing with the SEC is silly. The funding is going to be outside money, not inside money. |
|
jpj
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 296
|
Post by jpj on May 2, 2022 19:25:54 GMT -5
I assume that NIL money constitutes taxable income and quarterly estimated taxes have to be paid on it. Over/under on the percentage of NIL recipients who understand and will do that? 5% |
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,104
|
Post by bigskyhoya on May 2, 2022 19:42:20 GMT -5
All I asked was whether Georgetown could directly get involved in NIL. I have no idea how I am involved in this discussion at all, so moving on. To bring it back to the thread, I am kind of surprised that Georgetown facilitating $200K of NIL to Ward isn't getting more attention. It raises the question of what, if any, NIL money is going Murray's way. I find it hard to believe that we would have facilitated $200K for Ward, and Murray gets nothing. You really want to be part of that Anti Ewing-Thompson club don't you. You're not part of it and that is a good thing. I'm giving you high praise for your character and you always take it the wrong way. I’m not anti-Ewing. But I’m proud to be on team anti-losing. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,427
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on May 2, 2022 21:28:34 GMT -5
Unlike campaign finance contributions going into a general fund, the NIL money is going directly to an individual who'll be responsible for the taxes on the money.. The players will also have to provide a service for the money, its not free.. Bottom line there has to be some transparency to the NIL regardless of who's paying or receiving I agree it's not a perfect analogy. And yes, the players do need to provide a service for the money, but from what I have read in many instances it amounts to nothing more than token appearances, etc. The real issue is that these players are basically being paid a talent acquisition fee, they aren't being paid for their name, image, or likeness. If they were getting money for the latter, the amounts involved would be much lower. Most of these kids aren't getting paid because their name, image, and likeness are worth the amount they are receiving, but rather because a rich donor wants to get good kids to enroll at their school. In principle, I think NIL payments (that truly reflect NIL) would be great, but in practice the system is being used for talent acquisition fees, instead. I totally agree on transparency. Every deal should be public, the amounts should be public, and the source of the donors should be public. The money should not be able to be shadily funneled through LLCs, etc. This is well within the NCAA's ability to regulate, I would think. I hear you but what’s the difference between what you describe and donors paying for a state of the art practice facility? Each deal has to be reported to the players school, I forget which company Gtown has partnered with to help players with this process but it is a requirement that every deal is reported.. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,427
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on May 2, 2022 21:41:47 GMT -5
Revenue sharing is what should have happened long ago…
On Edit- it’s crazy that these “collectives” or “directives” can remain anonymous.
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,988
|
Post by hoyaguy on May 2, 2022 22:36:57 GMT -5
I mean idk what arguments are even left
Like college athletes rake in millions for colleges and they get ummmmm a scholarship which is cool but radically overvalued in a dollars sense because of stupid tuition rates these days being criminal if it was any other industry
And I mean now at least lots of football players in college (most of whom won’t make the nfl) will get some money along with the long term brain injuries the school makes mad money off of (gotta love higher education always “bettering the communities” they are a part of)
Any predictions if/when the SEC and any other conferences threaten to leave ncaa all together? But that would really only happen if the ncaa actually did something to control this better
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,934
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 2, 2022 22:56:43 GMT -5
I mean idk what arguments are even left Like college athletes rake in millions for colleges and they get ummmmm a scholarship which is cool but radically overvalued in a dollars sense because of stupid tuition rates these days being criminal if it was any other industry Let's unpack this. There are ~480,000 college athletes out there. Not all have a scholarship--most do not. At Georgetown, 85 percent of student-athletes are not on athletic scholarship. Some schools make a lot of money off some teams. Most do not. And hard as it is for some to comprehend, Georgetown does not make money off athletics and, as of late, does not make money on men's basketball because of the budget secured by the basketball office each year. Next, Why are tuition rates "stupid"? The same parents that want low tuition rates also want the newest dorms, the best professors, the most largesse on financial aid. That comes with a cost. Tuition and fees at Georgetown were a combined $838 million last year across all schools, less $209 million for financial aid, for $629 million. Salaries across the University were $772 million, of which academic and research FTE's accounted for $695 million of it. In short, net tuition ($629M) does not even cover the cost of faculty and academic support ($695M) that supports a school of this size and stature. So unless you want a) far more students paying to cover costs, b) fewer faculty and less student support, c) little or no financial aid, or d) all of the above, tuition reflects the market demand for what people expect out of the University at its size and reputational niche. |
|
|
|
Post by practice on May 3, 2022 6:53:21 GMT -5
I mean idk what arguments are even left Like college athletes rake in millions for colleges and they get ummmmm a scholarship which is cool but radically overvalued in a dollars sense because of stupid tuition rates these days being criminal if it was any other industry Let's unpack this. There are ~480,000 college athletes out there. Not all have a scholarship--most do not. At Georgetown, 85 percent of student-athletes are not on athletic scholarship. Some schools make a lot of money off some teams. Most do not. And hard as it is for some to comprehend, Georgetown does not make money off athletics and, as of late, does not make money on men's basketball because of the budget secured by the basketball office each year. Next, Why are tuition rates "stupid"? The same parents that want low tuition rates also want the newest dorms, the best professors, the most largesse on financial aid. That comes with a cost. Tuition and fees at Georgetown were a combined $838 million last year across all schools, less $209 million for financial aid, for $629 million. Salaries across the University were $772 million, of which academic and research FTE's accounted for $695 million of it. In short, net tuition ($629M) does not even cover the cost of faculty and academic support ($695M) that supports a school of this size and stature. So unless you want a) far more students paying to cover costs, b) fewer faculty and less student support, c) little or no financial aid, or d) all of the above, tuition reflects the market demand for what people expect out of the University at its size and reputational niche. I have a plan to save Georgetown almost $16M over the next four years. Also, I've looked at Georgetown's basketball budget in the past -- if I recall, it magically breaks even every year. Even with Ewing's non-market compensation package, there's no way that you can convince anyone that Georgetown doesn't come out ahead with men's basketball. If they don't, it's just more mismanagement. There's solid TV money coming in, there has been -- until next year -- decent cash flow from season tickets, and a few large national sponsors, plus Jordan/Nike. I wouldn't put it past DeGioia and crew, but I don't think the lease is a killer -- if you haven't been to games recently, there is a skeleton crew of workers there. Also, let's not get started on another DeGioia/Georgetown problem -- we have a third rate endowment compared to peer top twenty five universities which limits the universities ability to offset financial aid, bringing in top academics, starting new programs etc. Tuition rates are "stupid" because so many students do not pay the advertised rate. There's means testing and academic scholarship -- all of which I think is a great idea. Depending on what your parents' income is, however, your tuition could be $61,872 this year ... and that's before room and board. That is a stupid number for most families earning under $500K/year but more than $100K. Getting back tot he topic at hand, I hope some young smart person starts a Hoya Collective specifically focused on Men's Basketball but that can eventually branch out to organize NIL activities for other Georgetown athletes. I think there are a lot of Hoya owned/run businesses in DC and beyond that would be interested in relatively small marketing activities -- a social media post, an appearance, an online ad -- that in the aggregate could add up to real $$$ for our athletes -- at least the stars. Would a Hoya alum pay $2000 to have Don Carey come by his kid's birthday party and shoot hoops for an hour? How about $5K to get half the team at corporate shootaround? I don't know what sort of $200K Ewing and Co. may have cobbled together for Ward ... but given how the university and basketball program have failed for five years straight, I'm hoping an alumni with some sports and marketing skills can make a nice business and help the program. |
|
hoyaduck
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Hoya Saxa
Posts: 1,449
|
Post by hoyaduck on May 3, 2022 13:15:34 GMT -5
“The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion. “The NCAA is not above the law.” So all these headaches, from star players leaving campuses to collectives simultaneously raising eyebrows and player wages across the sport? They’re problems caused by pipe dreams, willful ignorance and inaction, not fans or media who could see the obvious injustice and pointed it out at every opportunity. Universities that made up the NCAA easily could have seen this sea change coming and tried to ease into common-sense legislation and a more fair and equitable system. Instead, they held onto a dream that they could count on the status quo in perpetuity. Instead, the Supreme Court sent a shock to the system. Member schools and administrators were wholly unprepared for this new world, and the blame for the upheaval in the sport sits squarely on their shoulders. Still, that upheaval is merely a rapid, unsettling evolution. It is not the beginning of the end. ... College programs are the front porch and identity of communities and universities. A century of tradition and identity doesn’t disappear overnight because players are no longer restricted by unfair transfer rules or artificially limited from capitalizing on their obvious worth. ... The rules of amateurism were the villain the whole time, no matter how many people tried to lionize them as ideals worth preserving. It was a grift, making millions off unpaid labor. It always has been wrong. But now, as the artificial restrictions that produced those characterizations fall away, so do the scales from more and more peoples’ eyes. So yes, the Supreme Court officially ushered in the end of the world as we know it. But it’s not the end of college football. It’s a bumpy, difficult introduction to a new world that, to those no longer viewing the sport through the unconstitutional lens of the NCAA, is a lot less icky and a whole lot more just. That’s not something to fear. It’s something to celebrate. theathletic.com/3289588/2022/05/02/college-football-nil-transfer-portal/ |
|
