There are many excuses (by our fellow alums overall)
Rutgers Last in B1G for Public Schools Donor Giving
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
There are many excuses (by our fellow alums overall)
Thanks for your feedback.
I wish it was different too but the only way to compete with the big dogs is via NIL donations.
2nd sentence and 3rd sentence are opposites.
You are okay paying mercenaries to play football.
But the payment should stop at experience and education benefits.
Education benefits are literally payment worth tens of thousands of dollars.
It appears you're e fine with paying players.
Just a matter of level of compensation.
And you are about berating fans while you do NOTHING. Sit down and shut up.
No you do nothing Grampa and have admitted to such. All you do is start silly threads. Run along your dinner is getting cold.
Learn how to spell, you little twit. You know nothing. About anything. About Rutgers. Rutgers athletics. About me. I can I assure you I have given more to RU that you will probably make in your lifetime. All you do is put others down. You are a whale turd.
I doubt that very much Grampa. No one out insults you on this board you’re the ultimate passive aggressive loser. If you care about Rutgers sports donate to NIL if not STFU.
Never realized grandpa would be the basis of an insult. Usually is something that's respected
He's quite the amusing little twit, isn't he? 95% of his posts are berating other posters about their failure to give to NIL.
We don't usually equate traditional college football compensation with mercenaries. But you do you.
I'd submit it's the type of compensation not the level. But again...
I'll bet this post sounded better in your head.
We really shouldn't let folks sign up to this board using their mother's credit card.
So you're fine with compensation for athletes playing college athletics.
Glad we agree.
Since you agree they are all receiving any type of compensation, wouldn't that make them all mercenaries?
So you are paying for mercenaries to play football?
Sounded just as ridiculous as talking about athletes using compensation to pay for tattoos.
If you donate to NIL - then you potentially pay for tattoo.
If you donate to the AD - then you potentially pay for a guy to play golf and have a country club membership.
Hard to mock one without the other.
But people draw weird lines in the sand that don't always make sense.
Well let's see... athletes very often have hundreds if not thousands of dollars of tattoos. You are willing to pay them to play football. You are paying for tattoos. Are you under the impression they are unhoused or hungry?
Rhetorical question. Don't answer that. I'm tired of this conversation.
They are mercenaries for two reasons. No actual commitment to the program beyond what benefits them. Requiring money to commit in the general sense.
Tell you what if I use an image or likeness of a player I'll compensate them for it.
The rest of you please enjoy enjoy paying kids to play college football when they couldn't give two ***** about you or your team or your commitment to the program. They'll happily leave with your money in their pocket or on their arm if it suits them. Enjoy.
They have always been mercenaries. Always will be. As you agreed - they have always gotten compensation.
How many of our top recruits are signing on as walk-ons, with no scholarship compensation?
Exactly.
They take fan money to get an education and “couldn't give two ***** about you or your team or your commitment to the program.”
Pull their scholarship and they are out the door.
Some fans just didn’t care if they spend it on education and then also tattoos.
The irony is spending money on golf is fine. Spending on tattoos is the end of the world.
Is HC Schiano hungry or homeless that he needs you to pay for him to play golf?
There is something about the goose and the gander in there somewhere.
Look, pay them if you want. I'm not and I've exhausted my desire to explain why. You seem to think you can convince me to change my mind here. You won't. You do you.
Your HC thing is a false equivalency. It severely weakens whatever case you are trying to make.
First of all, a HC is an adult who has paid their traditional "dues" of going to college and working their way up the ladder, similar to one working their way up the corporate ladder. Let's go with that. No education, start as an unpaid intern. Work hard, show you have value, get paid a little, and get hired full time when you graduate. Continue to work hard, and get promoted to the point you make a good living, even a very comfortable one.
What does an unproven high school graduate being to a college football team other than potential? Yes, there are a handful who are stars right away, but the large majority require development, coaching, nutrition, work, etc that requires a huge investment in time and resources. And many of those don't pan out.
Now, let's turn the page to players that prove it on the field. I have no problem with them getting some NIL money. But hundreds of thousands of dollars? If they are that good, won't they make millions at the next level?
Your equating what a 30, 40, 50 or 60 year old coach makes with what an 18 or 18 year old should make is weak. Times have changed some, but I suggest you read a book by a college football coach. Mike Leach's book Swing Your Sword is good. Lower ring coaches are making low salaries and working insane hours while having to feed their feed their families with the "hope" of making big money some day. Why should it be different for a kid out of high school?
Finally, lost in this discussion is NIL means Name Image Likeness, and not Nobodies wIn Lottery.
As you will remember from our discussions, I think "worth" has nothing to do with it. We live in a market society, and people are paid according to the demand for their "product" and the supply of it. A sexy gymnast makes a mint not because she is worthy but rather because people like looking at pictures of sexy women and because the supply is, unfortunately, limited.
You are confusing NIL with worth on the playing field, mat, pool, court, etc. I have no idea if the LSU gymnast is talented in her sport, nor do I care. She is being paid for her purported good looks-her image and likeness. That's NIL just like throngs of untalented Tik Tok stars. A football player out of high school? Not the same thing. Not sure there are throngs of pervy old wormen following hot young football players on social media. if there are any they get endorsements, good for them. If they produce in the field, pay them for performing. Just like in the corporate world
Do Whales produce physical ****? For some reason I thought their waste was all liquid form. It's a shame the windmills will kill then all soon.
The players are not being paid for performing. They are being paid because someone thinks, rightly or wrongly, that their name, image and likeness will be useful in marketing a product. Or they are being paid for their NIL because some booster or collective thinks they would otherwise be lured away by another school. Whether the NIL *should* be useful is irrelevant to what they get paid, just as with any (as you put it well) "untalented Tik Tok stars." Desert has nothing to do with it. It's all supply and demand.
Family Guy says Dolphins make ropey poops. I thought that might help further the discussion.
Last edited:
Maybe I'm confused with the concept of Name Image and Likeness.
A bunch of donors getting together and pooling money to pay unproven and proven players to stay on their team is not paying players for their Name Image or Likeness. So, in my mind, NIL has morphed into what you said above and I put in bold.
Remember the case that originally started the NIL thing? It was Ryan Hart, the Rutgers QB who had graduated, but Electronic Arts used his image and likeness in a college football video game.
And while the recent Supreme Court decision narrowly decided NIL, they skated past the pay for play issue, which is nicely summarized here:
"The NCAA, hounded by legislators as it has been hounded by judges, had to act. And in many ways, the NCAA is ceding its authority in this area to the individual schools and conferences themselves, especially in states without NIL laws, as if to say, “We wanted to slow play this, but I guess it’s too late. You guys handle it!”
This is stunning to me. As someone who had been part of planning meetings around NIL—within my purview at Villanova and the Big East Conference—I am keenly aware that the NCAA has had working groups on this issue for more than two years. Thousands of hours have been devoted to the erecting of “guardrails”—their phrase, not mine—to ensure that NIL rights are not to be confused with “pay-for-play” and that schools’ logos and marks won’t be used. Now, although states and schools will incorporate some of those similar guardrails, more than two years of work by many good and talented people across hundreds of universities is being pushed aside for a more decentralized process."
Business of Football: The Supreme Court Sends a Message to the NCAA
It's rare for sports cases to reach the highest court in the land, but a unanimous decision is a harbinger of much larger industry changes to come.
www.si.com
Maybe I'm confused with the concept of Name Image and Likeness.
A bunch of donors getting together and pooling money to pay unproven and proven players to stay on their team is not paying players for their Name Image or Likeness. So, in my mind, NIL has morphed into what you said above and I put in bold.
Remember the case that originally started the NIL thing? It was Ryan Hart, the Rutgers QB who had graduated, but Electronic Arts used his image and likeness in a college football video game.
And while the recent Supreme Court decision narrowly decided NIL, they skated past the pay for play issue, which is nicely summarized here:
"The NCAA, hounded by legislators as it has been hounded by judges, had to act. And in many ways, the NCAA is ceding its authority in this area to the individual schools and conferences themselves, especially in states without NIL laws, as if to say, “We wanted to slow play this, but I guess it’s too late. You guys handle it!”
This is stunning to me. As someone who had been part of planning meetings around NIL—within my purview at Villanova and the Big East Conference—I am keenly aware that the NCAA has had working groups on this issue for more than two years. Thousands of hours have been devoted to the erecting of “guardrails”—their phrase, not mine—to ensure that NIL rights are not to be confused with “pay-for-play” and that schools’ logos and marks won’t be used. Now, although states and schools will incorporate some of those similar guardrails, more than two years of work by many good and talented people across hundreds of universities is being pushed aside for a more decentralized process."
Business of Football: The Supreme Court Sends a Message to the NCAA
It's rare for sports cases to reach the highest court in the land, but a unanimous decision is a harbinger of much larger industry changes to come.
As I said earlier, when I use a player's likeness I'll pay him. Otherwise, the rest of the NIL fans can pay them to play. I'm not.
Last edited:
First, let's clear away a misconception. The Supreme Court case did not concern NIL. It concerned (let's be blunt) the NCAA's totally irrational restrictions on what educational benefits could be offered to scholarship athletes. It was the NCAA that decided to view the decision as preventing it from enforcing NIL guardrails. My best guess is that the NCAA did this for two reasons: (a) it thought it would lose an NIL case and (b) it thought it couldn't resist the tide of state legislation allowing athletes to profit from NIL. The two reasons had a common root: the "guardrails" that were being "erected" were likely too restrictive to satisfy the courts or the legislators.Maybe I'm confused with the concept of Name Image and Likeness.
A bunch of donors getting together and pooling money to pay unproven and proven players to stay on their team is not paying players for their Name Image or Likeness. So, in my mind, NIL has morphed into what you said above and I put in bold.
Remember the case that originally started the NIL thing? It was Ryan Hart, the Rutgers QB who had graduated, but Electronic Arts used his image and likeness in a college football video game.
And while the recent Supreme Court decision narrowly decided NIL, they skated past the pay for play issue, which is nicely summarized here:
"The NCAA, hounded by legislators as it has been hounded by judges, had to act. And in many ways, the NCAA is ceding its authority in this area to the individual schools and conferences themselves, especially in states without NIL laws, as if to say, “We wanted to slow play this, but I guess it’s too late. You guys handle it!”
This is stunning to me. As someone who had been part of planning meetings around NIL—within my purview at Villanova and the Big East Conference—I am keenly aware that the NCAA has had working groups on this issue for more than two years. Thousands of hours have been devoted to the erecting of “guardrails”—their phrase, not mine—to ensure that NIL rights are not to be confused with “pay-for-play” and that schools’ logos and marks won’t be used. Now, although states and schools will incorporate some of those similar guardrails, more than two years of work by many good and talented people across hundreds of universities is being pushed aside for a more decentralized process."
Business of Football: The Supreme Court Sends a Message to the NCAA
It's rare for sports cases to reach the highest court in the land, but a unanimous decision is a harbinger of much larger industry changes to come.
Second, the collectives are in fact paying athletes for their NIL. This is of course a disguised way of paying them to stay here. Good NIL rules would restrict or ban booster collectives. But the NCAA failed to create rules that would satisfy the courts and legislatures, nor is it willing to try to enforce the rules it has.
If you don't believe that the collectives are paying athletes for NIL, see the link. https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/...etball-player-will-sign-nil-deal-in-2023.html
RU has a lot more lower and middle class grads, we don’t have a core of wealthy bros who shell out for sports and other things because they bleed scarlet. Penn State, for example, is a culture. RU is primarily people taking classes for a degree.
Our peers have a very, very different college experience and socioeconomic mix.
Our peers have a very, very different college experience and socioeconomic mix.