I agree. I don’t see the for-profit model as sustainable, or at least not particularly lucrative (for anyone).
I sort of assumed the idea would be, “Hey guy who gives $5 million to build buildings, how about you give us $4 million and we’ll put it in an investment fund so that it is self-sustaining to a degree and use the money in that fund to buy players to come/stay. As a tradeoff, you get to attend some practices, sit courtside, use the players for your own personal marketing if desired, etc.”
Yeah, long term, I tihnk that’s what the 501c3 model is.
By the way, I’d advise the Valiant store to discount that Hunter Dickinson bobblehead at this point.
As someone with a collection of Michigan bobbleheads…I strongly agree.
I will go to my grave saying that NIL elides the question of paying ALL the players, which it is the u’s responsibility to take on. A union could have accomplished that, but now that players are vying with one another for dollars, I dunno. Instead of getting paid–an established and fair wage–they’re allowed to make money. Not the same thing. The fireworks that NIL has created have obscured the basic issues. Conveniently–at least for now–for the U’s. When they’re reaped this whirlwind for a while I suppose that could change.
EDIT: Obviously, there could be no across-the-board pay level, and clearly it would have to be limited to the revenue sports. But leagues could readily establish minimums, possibly taken right out of or keyed to TV contracts.
4 Likes
I am 100% on board.
It shifts the responsibility from the school to you and me.
1 Like
In many ways, college sports as a whole is propped up by other people, not the school though.
1 Like
That’s true. but I think who’s name is in the upper-left hand corner of the check changes lots of things. Even, if the school is to a degree a pass-through.
Separating things allows for payments to be made based on revenue etc. though in a way that the schools doling out money likely wouldn’t due to Title IX. I think that’s the big benefit of the separate structure.
A University can’t decide that Recruit X is worth $500k, but a secondary collective can.
Agreed. I guess my take is that building a framework that elides Title IX due to who is writing the check is functionally sensible but pretty against the mission/goal of what higher education (these teams are tied to SCHOOLS) is supposed to stand for.
Obviously, we’re getting far afield from how it pertains to our little niche here, but it sort of underlines my queasiness with the process.
It’s like we’ve built a compensation structure in “not for profit sports” (if I could scare quote that ten more times I would) that enshrines the worst takes chauvinists have about women’s basketball.
3 Likes
12 Likes
You have to love the dedication and work their staff is willing to put in on every single player. No stone left unturned. That’s why Muss is so successful.
1 Like
1 Like
“need those hog updates baby”? why, I hear that’s the exact same thing that RJ Davis’s girlfr- I am tackled by onlookers
4 Likes
I work with a collective for bball so if anyone has direct questions I’m happy to answer
1 Like
jeez that is a slick jersey
meanwhile he’ll be onto his…fourth? team?
6 Likes
Third I think.
He’s a tough kid, major competitor (too much of one maybe)…he just may not be good enough?
okay, he transferred back when i didn’t know who he was and i wasn’t following other big ten teams that closely. i think i saw someone else with one name “miller” and second name four letters transfer from the state of illinois to indiana and just realized i never updated the interpretation i had then.
so yeah what i’m saying is i thought he and miller kopp were the same person for a few weeks several years ago and it lodged deep in my memory
1 Like
Slater says Guard U