DGL n NIL

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
Wait, the restriction was "we will pay for your education and dozens of other perks" if you participate in a sport while you are here? Wow...how horrible
I didn't say it was horrible. that's your words. i called it exploitative and it indeed is. Why are you so against student athletes getting paid their market value.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
Coach Painter is not a student...he is a professional. He is a paid employee. College athletes are neither professionals or paid employees.
another silly argument that is so easy to shoot down. Forget the legal definition and focus on the economics. In what other industry is the labor needed to produce the goods/services being sold not called employees. yeah college sports, where we choose to use silly rules of amateurism to dance around the fact that are de-facto employees being paid in scholarships. Yeah lets not call them employees/contractors so we won't have to pay them. why don't you try that in any industry and see how well it holds up in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerDeac

mathboy

All-American
Feb 4, 2004
10,598
10,446
113
Michigan
I see a lot of circular logic being thrown around. Maybe it’s time to go back to the beginning. Colleges got together and decided to play sports with each other. Their student participated. People liked to watch and would buy tickets. To keep the games competitive and fair, the schools decided to put some rules in place to eliminate the advantage richer schools would have. Those were the rules. If you wanted to play, you followed those rules. Nobody was taking advantage of the student athletes.

Should these kids get compensated for their image and the use of their names? Seems fair. How about Drew Bree’s getting $5 every time some Hack announcer used the term “cool breeze”? That’s probably within reason. However we have a problem now. Should schools now compete to pay a kid to play at their school with money? Seems like the whole idea of amateur sports and fair games just swirled down the toilet. We are seeing kids get paid BEFORE they play one minute for the school. This sounds very much unlike the original idea that schools would compete on a level and fair playing field.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
They aren't under-compensated compared to market value at all. How do I know this? Look at the salaries for international and g league players. These guys are better than the top 5% of D1 talent, but aren't at the freak level of the NBA.
I am tired of shooting down nonsense arguments. Market rates has nothing to do with skill. I am damn good at minesweeeper. Nobody wants to see it. there's no market for it. My market value as a minesweeper player is 0. My skill is pretty damn good. My value. nada.
Unless International players and g-league players are eligible to participate in the college game market, their compensation in g-league adds nothing to the discussion of what's the market value of a college athlete. nothing. different markets completely.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
I see a lot of circular logic being thrown around. Maybe it’s time to go back to the beginning. Colleges got together and decided to play sports with each other. Their student participated. People liked to watch and would buy tickets. To keep the games competitive and fair, the schools decided to put some rules in place to eliminate the advantage richer schools would have. Those were the rules. If you wanted to play, you followed those rules. Nobody was taking advantage of the student athletes.

Should these kids get compensated for their image and the use of their names? Seems fair. How about Drew Bree’s getting $5 every time some Hack announcer used the term “cool breeze”? Should schools now compete to pay a kid to play at their school? Seems like the whole idea of amateur sports and fair games just swirled down the toilet.
i agree, it started around amateurism. it unfortunately outgrew that and became serious money, the question becomes how then is the money distributed amongst those to contribute to generate it. the current version is that coaches get paid market rates, AD's get paid market rates, construction companies get paid market rates to build edifices, student-athletes gets handicapped by amateurism rules and are under-compensated. Not only are they undercompensated, NCAA used to have even more ridiculous amateurism rules that made it impossible for student athletes to even make money.

To address your second paragraph, rightly or wrongly, regardless of what the rules state, unregulated NIL is going to become a de-facto way to pay athletes their market value. That's what will inevitably happen. It's really the first time NCAA is providing an avenue to legally pay students athletes ins something other than scholarships, education and training perks. The money may come from sponsor or friends or whatever, money is fungible, and what it in effect will be is still payment for services rendered or to be rendered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mathboy

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
No, the absurdity is the idea that he does...as he has proven multiple times that he does not, and, he will prove it yet again.
just go take an econ class, so you understand markets and stop making silly arguments. in a free market, you are worth what someone will pay you. done. not what DAG10 or atmafola thinks you are worth. you are worth what someone will pay you. That's the definition of a market value. If someone keeps determining Dmezi Anderson is worth a college scholarship, then he is worth a scholarship. last I check, there's no regulation forcing schools to offer him scholarship. heck multiple market participants have deemed him worthy of a scholarship but DAG10 is here making silly arguments about how he is not worth that much.
 

Bethboilerfan

Senior
Sep 14, 2012
3,814
4,015
113
they shouldn't have to go pro to be adequeately compensated for their role in producing the product that people pay for. Tell coaches that too then. Tell them to take schollies as payments or go pro to get paid.
I honestly do not understand this argument. Residents do not get paid the amount that MDs/physician professors are paid. They are students on scholarship learning their “profession” and are receiving a small amount of money to do this. Somehow some people think that a 17 year old person should be paid what the staff taking care of his needs and teaching him should be paid — big bucks above and beyond a generous scholarship. Why is this “free market” argument not made for everyone on scholarship from carpenters to nurses, et al who are, in a sense, apprentices learning skills.
 
Last edited:

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
the only thing stopping student athletes from having leverage is the unreasonable amateurism rules. remove those, and watch what those student athletes in revenue sports are really worth. we are starting to see. its far more than your paltry scholarships.
Wrong. The product will be much less valuable when they go from amateurs to mercenary minor league basketball players. TV ratings and ticket sales will tank.
 
Nov 19, 2017
238
486
63
Wrong. The product will be much less valuable when they go from amateurs to mercenary minor league basketball players. TV ratings and ticket sales will tank.
This. I watch because these players wanted to be at Purdue. There will be no school loyalty when the roster turns over 50%+ every year. Also, I would have no interest in watching a team assembled by some wealthy Purdue alum. It just doesn't fit with the reason I love Purdue basketball. I may be the only one, but my interest in watching/attending games will wane if it continue like this.

I don't begrudge the players for taking the money when they can get it, but by the same token, they can't begrudge me if I don't find the sport appealing anymore.
 

BoilerBiker

All-American
Oct 13, 2006
6,167
2,516
113
Wrong. The product will be much less valuable when they go from amateurs to mercenary minor league basketball players. TV ratings and ticket sales will tank.
the trend in recent decades have seen the opposite though:
as college football and basketball have become solidified as the minor leagues, the $ have increased, and college became big business.

baseball and hockey are setup in the model
where the pros and/or ncaa chose to keep college as a separate lower level from their minor league systems.
the lower $ for college baseball and hockey reflect that setup accordingly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
the trend in recent decades have seen the opposite though:
as college football and basketball have become solidified as the minor leagues, the $ have increased, and college became big business.

baseball and hockey are setup in the model
where the pros and/or ncaa chose to keep college as a separate lower level from their minor league systems.
the lower $ for college baseball and hockey reflect that setup accordingly.
College basketball and football haven’t been the minor leagues, as minor leaguers are professionals.

When college football and basketball players become minor league professional athletes, the popularity will more closely resemble that of minor league baseball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAG10

BoilerBiker

All-American
Oct 13, 2006
6,167
2,516
113
College basketball and football haven’t been the minor leagues, as minor leaguers are professionals.

When college football and basketball players become minor league professional athletes, the popularity will more closely resemble that of minor league baseball.
thats what led to nil.
the system setup for football and basketball already utilizes college as the top level feeder system (whatever term one wishes to apply, if not semi pro or minor league, they are the substitutes for them).
different than the baseball and hockey setup.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
thats what led to nil.
the system setup for football and basketball have utilized college to serve as the primary feeder system (whatever term one wishes to apply, if not semi pro or minor leaguer, they became the substitutes for them).
distinctly different than the baseball and hockey setup.
That’s my point: when they become ACTUAL professional minor leaguers, the popularity of those sports will follow that of other professional minor league sports. Might as well be the Lafayette Lions or whatever at that point.
 

BoilerBiker

All-American
Oct 13, 2006
6,167
2,516
113
That’s my point: when they become ACTUAL professional minor leaguers, the popularity of those sports will follow that of other professional minor league sports. Might as well be the Lafayette Lions or whatever at that point.
thats where we view it differently i guess, as some viewed football and basketball essentially in that role already.
college $ rivaled not just the minors, but some of the pro league coaches/facilities/stadiums.

so i would i agree,
more fans may leave when players get big $,
like other fans who left when coaches started to get big $,
when lockerrooms & weightrooms got big $, etc.
 
Last edited:

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
I honestly do not understand this argument. Residents do not get paid the amount that MDs/physician professors are paid. They are students on scholarship learning their “profession” and are receiving a small amount of money to do this. Somehow some people think that a 17 year old person should be paid what the staff taking care of his needs and teaching him should be paid — big bucks above and beyond a generous scholarship. Why is this “free market” argument not made for everyone on scholarship from carpenters to nurses, et al who are, in a sense, apprentices learning skills.
Leave it up to you to bring up the only other exploitative system in the country that rivals revenue college sports. The medical residency system. It's an extremely exploitative system. Thats exactly another place where people are paid way below their market values. And they only get away because they had congress sign an iron clad law special exemption in place that protects the match system and leaves residents no room to maneuver.

Under ideal market conditions (which rarely happens), As long as there is no or minimal restrictions on entry/exit, and ideally there are multiple buyers and sellers, and each participant is free to negotiate as they please, you end up close to the market value. Medical Residents, who are already doctors by the way, don't have that. There is iron-clad match system that matches them to a hospital, and strong contract that absolutely binds them to that hospital. That's why resident abuse is so rife. As a surgical resident, I was comfortably the least paid employee in the entire hospital on a per hour bases. A resident is not free to choose from multiple options and negotiate what's best for himself or herself. if you remove the artificial barriers, and left it a true free market. I guarantee you medical residents (some specialty more than others), easily get 2 to 3x if not more than what they are currently being paid.
 
Last edited:

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
Wrong. The product will be much less valuable when they go from amateurs to mercenary minor league basketball players. TV ratings and ticket sales will tank.
I haven't made any argument about the value of the product. All i have argued is that the current state is exploitative and revenue college athletes are underpaid relative to their market value. That's it.

It is indeed possible that paying them at market rates makes the product less desirable to the customers and there's less money to share. But that does not negate my argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SCBoiler1

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Will it just be 25 to 50 difference makers cashing in on this or will it trickle down to the role players,

Looking at Purdue's roster for next year, I could see Edey being a difference maker and being someone whose market value would be pretty high. I'm not sure anyone else on our roster could go out and get any kind of deal that would be much more than a few thousand $.

Pack was right in the sweet spot to sign a big NIL deal. Doesn't have the size for the NBA but was an all B12 player. I don't know all the ins and outs of their current situation but if I were advising Edey or Williams, I'd tell them to check out what opportunities might be available in the "NIL Market".

In Edey's case it would suck for Purdue but I would think he could lad a six figure deal somewhere else if not at Purdue.
 

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
I haven't made any argument about the value of the product. All i have argued is that the current state is exploitative and revenue college athletes are underpaid relative to their market value. That's it.

It is indeed possible that paying them at market rates makes the product less desirable to the customers and there's less money to share. But that does not negate my argument.
You said:
“the only thing stopping student athletes from having leverage is the unreasonable amateurism rules. remove those, and watch what those student athletes in revenue sports are really worth.”

My point is, when they become professional minor leaguers, the vast majority of them will be worth LESS, as the end product they are producing will be worth less.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
You said:
“the only thing stopping student athletes from having leverage is the unreasonable amateurism rules. remove those, and watch what those student athletes in revenue sports are really worth.”

My point is, when they become professional minor leaguers, the vast majority of them will be worth LESS, as the end product they are producing will be worth less.
i think I understand the difference. you assign a static value to worth as if it is inherent property that is fixed. I assign a market value to it, therefore it depends on time, place, and other market circumstances. A thing is worth whatever the market think its worth at the time i.e. what someone will pay for it. Just over a year ago, a barrel crude oil was worth $50, now its over $100. It's "inherent worth" (if such a thing can even be consistently and reliably defined) i.e. what you can do with it probably hasn't changed. But its market value has doubled. why? because that's what people are willing to paying for it.

that's why you see me repeating ad nauseum "in the current state". So yes, currently revenue students are in an exploitative system that grossly under-compensates them relative to their market rates. The existence of perks and under-the-table payments is exactly proof of that. We see all of sudden that providing a quasi-legal way for them to get paid resulted in increase in their compensation. That confirms my point. They are compensated below their market rates. That says nothing about future states when circumstances are differet (e.g customers demand for the product drops), or whatever other definition of worth you choose.
 
Last edited:

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
i think I understand the difference. you assign a static value to worth as if it is inherent property that is fixed. I assign a market value to it, therefore it depends on time, place, and other market circumstances. A thing is worth whatever the market think its worth at the time i.e. what someone will pay for it. Just over a year ago, a barrel crude oil was worth $50, now its over $100. It's "inherent worth" (if there's such a thing) i.e. what you can do with it probably hasn't changed. But its market value has doubled. why? because that's what people are willing to paying for it.

that's why you see me repeating ad nauseum "in the current state". So yes, currently revenue students are in an exploitative system that grossly under-compensates them relative to their market rates. The existence of perks and under-the-table payments is exactly proof of that. We see all of sudden that providing a quasi-legal way for them to get paid resulted in increase in their compensation. That confirms my point. They are compensated below their market rates. That says nothing about future states when circumstances are differet (e.g customers demand for the product drops), or whatever other definition of worth you choose.
you said:
“the only thing stopping student athletes from having leverage is the unreasonable amateurism rules. remove those, and watch what those student athletes in revenue sports are really worth.”

That’s not current state. Removing the amateurism rules hasn’t happened. Purdue isn’t allowed to cut paychecks to athletes every other Friday. We’re both theorizing about a future state.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
That’s not current state. Removing the amateurism rules hasn’t happened. Purdue isn’t allowed to cut paychecks to athletes every other Friday. We’re both theorizing about a future state.
this is a very very naive take. at least its only naive, not silly or wrong, like some other prior arguments. NIL is just an indirect way to pay. Without any further regulations, the actual effect it will have will be pretty much the same as university cutting the students checks at close to their market value. Remember money is fungible so it doesn't really matter who is actually writing the check, the effect is exactly the same. Student athletes getting paid at close to their market rates. NIL provides a legal albeit indirect way to that.

Prior to NIL, there existed no legal way to pay athletes, so once their value exceeded the scholarships they were getting, all you had left were under-the-table payments or increasing perks.
 

New Pal Boiler

All-American
Jun 30, 2010
17,102
19,385
113
this is a very very naive take. at least its only naive, not silly or wrong, like some other prior arguments. NIL is just an indirect way to pay. Without any further regulations, the actual effect it will have will be pretty much the same as university cutting the students checks at close to their market value. Remember money is fungible so it doesn't really matter who is actually writing the check, the effect is exactly the same. Student athletes getting paid at close to their market rates. NIL provides a legal albeit indirect way to that.

Prior to NIL, there existed no legal way to pay athletes, so once their value exceeded the scholarships they were getting, all you had left were under-the-table payments or increasing perks.
Certainly not as naive as your “Brohm and Painter should pay for the Olympic sports” take.

It’s still illegal, currently, for the institutions to pay athletes. And the current NIL setup creates an unlevel playing field that will erode the market value of the athlete even quicker than if each school could pay them directly, with some sort of salary cap in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
Certainly not as naive as your “Brohm and Painter should pay for the Olympic sports” take.
that point flew over your head completely. didn't it. i was just pointing out the absurdity of free-market for coaches, and amateurism for student athletes. I was in particular attacking the idea of we need to keep the underpayment of revenue sports athletes going, in order to keep overvaluing non-revenue sports athletes. My point was that if people deemed non-revenue sports so important, why is everyone not taking a haircut to subsidize them. why is that revenue student-athletes are they only ones being asked to take lower than their market rates. Why not make the same request to coaches and see how it flies. That's what was inherently wrong about the exisiting amateurism rules.

It’s still illegal, currently, for the institutions to pay athletes.
not anymore really. NIL is a legal but indirect backdoor that will accomplish the exact same thing, with the added inefficiencies (e.g. agent fees on both sides, cost of creating and maintaining NIL infrastructure etc) since it's a not a direct way to pay. But its overall effect would be the same as if it is the institution cutting the checks.

And the current NIL setup creates an unlevel playing field that will erode the market value of the athlete even quicker than if each school could pay them directly, with some sort of salary cap in place.

perhaps. some would even argue, very likely. I have never addressed this argument. But even if true, I still disagree that its a good enough reason to continue an exploitative system.
 

Kern County

True Freshman
Sep 24, 2012
985
667
93
except the issue is they are grossly under-compensated relative to their market rate. like grossly. so much so that schools kept finding creating ways to pay them in perks (some of which you mention)
I understand where you’re taking this, but there really isn’t (or there hasn’t been) a “market rate” until the NIL rules permitted athletes to cut their own deals. The “market” was constrained by admissions standards, scholarship limits, and one’s ability to fill a need on a roster. That was the only “market” that practically impacted revenue sports. You may have thought players deserved a cut of the action, but that’s not a market in any economic sense. There was no “market rate” for players in terms of revenue generated by certain college sports. The dynamics simply didn’t exist in practice, which is why NIL is such a wildcard right now. It’s also why this is the beginning, not the end, of compensating players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
Dec 20, 2021
306
526
93
thats where we view it differently i guess, as some viewed football and basketball essentially in that role already.

i agree in part though,
more fans may leave when players get big $,
like other fans who left when coaches starting getting big $, when lockerrooms/weightrooms got big $, etc.
TV ratings tend to disagree with the last statement though.
 

Bethboilerfan

Senior
Sep 14, 2012
3,814
4,015
113
Leave it up to you to bring up the only other exploitative system in the country that rivals revenue college sports. The medical residency system. It's an extremely exploitative system. Thats exactly another place where people are paid way below their market values. And they only get away because they had congress sign an iron clad law special exemption in place that protects the match system and leaves residents no room to maneuver.

Under ideal market conditions (which rarely happens), As long as there is no or minimal restrictions on entry/exit, and ideally there are multiple buyers and sellers, and each participant is free to negotiate as they please, you end up close to the market value. Medical Residents, who are already doctors by the way, don't have that. There is iron-clad match system that matches them to a hospital, and strong contract that absolutely binds them to that hospital. That's why resident abuse is so rife. As a surgical resident, I was comfortably the least paid employee in the entire hospital on a per hour bases. A resident is not free to choose from multiple options and negotiate what's best for himself or herself. if you remove the artificial barriers, and left it a true free market. I guarantee you medical residents (some specialty more than others), easily get 2 to 3x if not more than what they are currently being paid.
The medical profession has all kinds of rules/laws that protect their physicians and as a result, doctors are not chasing ambulances the way lawyers are doing. Cry me a river for physicians who when they start practicing enter a profession that is one of the very few that can move a person to the upper class. Others go through similar “apprenticeships” with nothing like the rewards of physicians. Yes, they have MDs but they are not yet trained in the specialty they wish to enter. I do not want to derail this thread so I will not reply to anything else about this
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JeffBoiler

Poprudy

Senior
Jan 26, 2012
3,566
3,992
113
TV ratings tend to disagree with the last statement though.
I'm pretty sure that ratings have had a rocky road the last few years compared to 10 years ago with more viewers and a need to watch something during COVID. Everything has had a upward trend the last year, but I disagree it's the NBA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

Indy_Rider

Senior
Feb 10, 2006
3,977
5,236
113
Bargersville, IN
You said:
“the only thing stopping student athletes from having leverage is the unreasonable amateurism rules. remove those, and watch what those student athletes in revenue sports are really worth.”

My point is, when they become professional minor leaguers, the vast majority of them will be worth LESS, as the end product they are producing will be worth less.
Exactly. Why college sports makes so much money is because you have passionate fans that care more about the name on the front of the jersey than on the back. It's the intuition name that is worth value.

And what makes the games enjoyable to watch, is you are watching guys playing for the love of the game and not the paycheck. You've seen a recent trend with bowl games of guys sitting out to focus on the pay check and that has hurt ratings because you lose that passion you get from amateur athletics that you don't get in professional.

And it's only going to get worse. Soon most of the games are going to turn into basically exhibition games where you have essentially a pro team playing an amateur team or semi-amateur.

Everything is going to suffer and it's going to no longer be an enjoyable viewing experience.
 

atmafola

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 1, 2011
6,888
4,125
113
The medical profession has all kinds of rules/laws that protect their physicians and as a result, doctors are not chasing ambulances the way lawyers are doing. Cry me a river for physicians who when they start practicing enter a profession that is one of the very few that can move a person to the upper class. Others go through similar “apprenticeships” with nothing like the rewards of physicians. Yes, they have MDs but they are not yet trained in the specialty they wish to enter. I do not want to derail this thread so I will not reply to anything else about this

by the way I am a physician by education and training, no longer practicing. But lack of public sympathy as you just espoused is what makes this injustice of the residency system continue. Most eventually complete residency, make more money and leave the fight behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
Anybody given any thought to the idea that this could actually help college basketball.? College basketball has lacked that certain star quality that it had even 20 years ago. Guys turn pro before we even get to know who they are.

I look back fondly on watching teams like the FAB 5, Phi Slama Jamma, the Flying Illini, the DePaul teams, the Hoyas, and the Orangeman. We had our own headliners in the Big Dog and the Three Amigos.

I don't think it will bring us back to those days but is it possible the NIL money entices guys to hang around another year instead of opting for the draft or the G League?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aamesker
Dec 20, 2021
306
526
93
Anybody given any thought to the idea that this could actually help college basketball.? College basketball has lacked that certain star quality that it had even 20 years ago. Guys turn pro before we even get to know who they are.

I look back fondly on watching teams like the FAB 5, Phi Slama Jamma, the Flying Illini, the DePaul teams, the Hoyas, and the Orangeman. We had our own headliners in the Big Dog and the Three Amigos.

I don't think it will bring us back to those days but is it possible the NIL money entices guys to hang around another year instead of opting for the draft or the G League?
It's absolutely enticing certain fringe NBA types to stay (Kofi last year, Dickinson, Oscar Tshiebwe, TJD etc. this year). I'm not as doom and gloom about it as most are here, but there are aspects that are not good for the sport right now as the lack of oversight is creating a pay to play type deals. It discourages some players that aren't necessarily NBA ready from making the jump purely because of money
 

Poprudy

Senior
Jan 26, 2012
3,566
3,992
113
Anybody given any thought to the idea that this could actually help college basketball.? College basketball has lacked that certain star quality that it had even 20 years ago. Guys turn pro before we even get to know who they are.

I look back fondly on watching teams like the FAB 5, Phi Slama Jamma, the Flying Illini, the DePaul teams, the Hoyas, and the Orangeman. We had our own headliners in the Big Dog and the Three Amigos.

I don't think it will bring us back to those days but is it possible the NIL money entices guys to hang around another year instead of opting for the draft or the G League?
Personally, I think this will push the G-league, Overtime or another league to raise contracts for these players. I get your point, but don't be fooled. Look who's all involved in Overtime. These guys are in it to generate money and have plenty of power to do it. I think this will delute the college game and think most of the upper talent will move to these leagues. Maybe somewhat like the NCAA did to the NIT years ago.
 

Dryfly88

Junior
Jul 9, 2015
2,200
2,327
113
Anybody given any thought to the idea that this could actually help college basketball.? College basketball has lacked that certain star quality that it had even 20 years ago. Guys turn pro before we even get to know who they are.

I look back fondly on watching teams like the FAB 5, Phi Slama Jamma, the Flying Illini, the DePaul teams, the Hoyas, and the Orangeman. We had our own headliners in the Big Dog and the Three Amigos.

I don't think it will bring us back to those days but is it possible the NIL money entices guys to hang around another year instead of opting for the draft or the G League?
No question it could keep some guys in school longer. The problem is they most likely won't be staying at PU if we don't find a way to pay. Could be good for some but I don't think for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnboiler123
Dec 20, 2021
306
526
93
Personally, I think this will push the G-league, Overtime or another league to raise contracts for these players. I get your point, but don't be fooled. Look who's all involved in Overtime. These guys are in it to generate money and have plenty of power to do it. I think this will delute the college game and think most of the upper talent will move to these leagues. Maybe somewhat like the NCAA did to the NIT years ago.
But that hasn't enticed many players to forgo college and get paid for the year before the draft
 

Poprudy

Senior
Jan 26, 2012
3,566
3,992
113
But that hasn't enticed many players to forgo college and get paid for the year before the draft
Those guys don't have the contract in place yet within those leagues and most fringe players wouldn't risk the pay day from college. I think when these league's establish themselves and take more and more recruited high school talent. I still think it will delute the college product. Didn't the top 2024 just sign with Overtime...it's coming.
 
Last edited:

SCBoiler1

Redshirt Freshman
Feb 10, 2014
1,241
1,743
113
Those guys don't have the contract in place yet within those leagues and most fringe players wouldn't risk the pay day from college. I think when these league's establish themselves and take more and more recruited high school talent. I still think it will delute the college product. Didn't the top 2024 just sign with Overtime...it's coming.
I can see what you're saying but if that's where we're headed, doesn't the NIL at least make the college game more competitive? If there was no NIL, these other options could be even more attractive and lead to an even bigger drain on the talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TX4GB

TX4GB

All-American
May 19, 2012
8,194
16,447
113
Could this level the playing field at some point? It might make CMPs recruiting easier if we have some $ amount. Then it would be down to coaching and opportunity. It would take money out of the equation when dealing with other schools who were doing this under the table. Then again they will continue at higher amounts maybe.
 

FirstDownB

All-American
Oct 12, 2015
9,739
13,812
113
Exactly. Why college sports makes so much money is because you have passionate fans that care more about the name on the front of the jersey than on the back. It's the intuition name that is worth value.

And what makes the games enjoyable to watch, is you are watching guys playing for the love of the game and not the paycheck. You've seen a recent trend with bowl games of guys sitting out to focus on the pay check and that has hurt ratings because you lose that passion you get from amateur athletics that you don't get in professional.

And it's only going to get worse. Soon most of the games are going to turn into basically exhibition games where you have essentially a pro team playing an amateur team or semi-amateur.

Everything is going to suffer and it's going to no longer be an enjoyable viewing experience.
Name on the front vs. back is what separates college sports from pro sports. Remember back in 1996 when they had the scab MLB players nobody watched or cared that year? Because people come out to watch the best in the world play ball. In college you could ship off the top talent off to a minor league and the fans would still fill up the stadiums and arenas. These student athletes have market value only because of the schools they play for.
 

Poprudy

Senior
Jan 26, 2012
3,566
3,992
113
I can see what you're saying but if that's where we're headed, doesn't the NIL at least make the college game more competitive? If there was no NIL, these other options could be even more attractive and lead to an even bigger drain on the talent.
I guess it would boil down to what players and how many are getting NIL deals. I love Purdue, but we are nowhere near schools that have a large network or marketing pool. We won't be as competitive as many schools in the B1G with larger supporting networks. We have a great fan base, but I can't see us spending the money of Michigan, OSU, MSU, Maryland, IU, Illinois...Hell, we couldn't compete with Miami for an Indiana kid. We will see, but I think big programs will continue to have endless funds to get bigger fish and smaller programs get scraps.