And just like that, the collectives are back in bidness

[paindonthurt]

You could start by me telling me the cause of action.

huh?

 

[HRMSU]

Athletes should just sign agreements with NIL collectives where they agree to advertise and help bring value to the collective.

- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.
- Athletes sign marketing agreements with the collective to advertise the collective.
- Money goes out of the collective and to athletes.
- Athletes take some pictures and short form video for the collective.
- The collective pushes out inexpensive media advertising for itself.
- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.

Repeat until fans stop being dumbasses.
The marketing contracts would clearly be for NAME IMAGE LIKENESS, and the collective could clearly show the contract values are legitimate since the marketing of those athletes brings in money.

Love 1st line in last paragraph

 

[ckDOG]

I still don't understand why it can't just be a gift. Collectives are just a means to give bigger ones.

I really don't see the problem. I don't LIKE it, mainly for MSU purposes. But I don't see the issue. We act like it's such a bad thing for 18-22 year olds to have money, but when are we going to look at the people who are willingly giving it to them?

Call it whatever you like but the substance is a payment to provide incentive to sign with your preferred school. The transaction should be allowed if people freely want to participate in that - my beef is simply regulating how much of that we want to let happen in a sports league to keep it competitive and entertaining.

That said, in a practical sense, if we managed to regulate that side of it then we'd just go back to "gifting" on the black market/under the table. So all this effort and discussion is for naught aside from making the market smaller bc black markets are less convenient. But if we're being honest, that's probably where the "gifts" from grown men to unrelated 17 year olds to play football for them likely belong.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

This is actually good news for us. Why? They never punished the blue bloods like they would us. We would have paid Cam Newton if it had been legal. That's all I'm sayin.

 

[HRMSU]

As if we need anything else to worry about in our program. Hope they have a handle on this type of stuff. I hate this new format but there's no shutting Pandora's box now.

Terps' Locksley: Lost locker room amid pay divide

Maryland coach Mike Locksley admitted Tuesday he "lost" the locker room in 2024 over which players to compensate.

www.espn.com

 

[Perd Hapley]

I dont think anyone said that. They said pay for play was going away, and that idea seems to be taking a big hit.

It was stated numerous times that the deals with collectives would be no longer allowed unless a legitimate business case could be provided….thus rendering them obsolete. And that took all of 21 days to almost completely reverse that new precedent.

 

[pseudonym]

Athletes should just sign agreements with NIL collectives where they agree to advertise and help bring value to the collective.

- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.
- Athletes sign marketing agreements with the collective to advertise the collective.
- Money goes out of the collective and to athletes.
- Athletes take some pictures and short form video for the collective.
- The collective pushes out inexpensive media advertising for itself.
- Money goes into the collective from dumbass fans.

Repeat until fans stop being dumbasses.
The marketing contracts would clearly be for NAME IMAGE LIKENESS, and the collective could clearly show the contract values are legitimate since the marketing of those athletes brings in money.

A part you are missing is that the athletes don’t want to do anything for the money other than play ball. They understand it is pay-for-play, so they don’t want to do anything else for the money.

That is partly why a top player in the state is committed to Sacramento State and not Mississippi State or Ole Miss: They promised him rev share money, meaning he doesn’t have to do anything else for the money.

An SEC football player was paid $250k for a few hours of his time for a marketing appearance. It took weeks to negotiate because the player didn’t want to do the marketing appearance. He just wanted the money.

 

[Maroon13]

I know many on here won’t like it, but this model is probably better for State than the revenue sharing + clearinghouse model. Of course, it’ll greatly benefit Ole Miss.

I don't see anyway this is better for State. We simply don't have the fan base or donors or commercial support to compete.

The best way for State was for a cap on spending and a commission to oversee and limit NIL to legit deals.

Schools being able to offer kids million dollar deals will absolutely screw us.

 

[ckDOG]

A part you are missing is that the athletes don’t want to do anything for the money other than play ball. They understand it is pay-for-play, so they don’t want to do anything else for the money.

That is partly why a top player in the state is committed to Sacramento State and not Mississippi State or Ole Miss: They promised him rev share money, meaning he doesn’t have to do anything else for the money.

An SEC football player was paid $250k for a few hours of his time for a marketing appearance. It took weeks to negotiate because the player didn’t want to do the marketing appearance. He just wanted the money.

That's hilarious. The athletes know what the collectives are and don't understand why they have to pretend it's anything other than pay for play. "You really are going to make me sit at this table at a golf tournament with 50 people in it and sign autographs?"