Big Dog said:

---

Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

That's another example of why the NIL impact is overstated. In many cases it just makes payments legal that were previously illegal but not penalized. 50 years ago, UCLA had Sam Gilbert; now they can legally give players the cars and swag that the older generation got from Gilbert. 5 years ago, DeAndre Ayton "allegedly" got at least $100,000 from Nike to play at Arizona -- now they can legally give players more than that, but so what? Whether Ayton got $100,000 or $1,000,000 for his 7 months in Tucson, our Bears wouldn't have landed him, and even more so with the dumpster-fire head coaches we've had recently. NIL doesn't even make the top 10 on the list of Cal basketball's problems.

Is NIL an acronym ("nil"), or an initialism ("N.I.L.")?

Big C said:

---

Is NIL an acronym ("nil"), or an initialism ("N.I.L.")?

---

NIL stands for Name-Image-Likeness. It refers to the ability of players to capitalize or earn money based on their name/image/likeness (i.e. sponsorships).

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearSD said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

but competitive balance is important ... that's why there are salary caps, collective bargaining, player contracts, drafts in pro sports

these things are in place because the pro sports understand that without them the number of teams would shrink to the point that the market for them would also shrink. That's not good for anyone.

---

Can't analogize college sports to pro sports. The team owners in NFL, NBA, etc. are in business together with the other owners in their own league. The teams compete on the field, but off the field the 49ers and Rams and all the other NFL teams are partners in a multi-billion-dollar business.

USC and San Diego State are not in business together. To a much lesser extent than the NFL or NBA, the members of a single conference are in business together, but that's as far as it goes.

It is not important to Ohio State that Kent State or Minnesota be able to compete toe-to-toe with the Buckeyes. In fact, Ohio State benefits from having a huge pool of teams that claim to be at the same level but are there for Ohio State to beat in football at least 9,999 times out of 10,000. The entire business model of college football "franchises" like Ohio State or Alabama is to rake in the money by hopefully winning at least 10 games every year, and it's much easier to do that if, like those teams, you play 4 games against teams you beat pretty much every time, 6 games against teams you beat 90% of the time, and 2 games that you win 50-75% of the time.

---

No but.....

The real problem is NOT Kent state vs. tOSU. It is Cal vs. USC. The real issue is whether this mirrors the issues that emerged during the 1960s and 1970s - a time when the NCAA was weaker on the enforcement front (as well as no scholarship limits) and USC would routinely beat Cal by 7 or 8 TDs and the Bears would not score a point.

Now Cal getting crushed is of little concern. But if Oregon and USC are the ONLY Pac-12 teams that play this game (which is NOT an unlikely situation) what sort of product is put out on the field when you do not have compelling TV - when you have either blow outs (which is the likely product that is TV'ed) or games featuring the "other guys".

Then factor in that BETTING is a huge driver of TV viewership and games with lines of -35 just are not attractive bets.

That is the real danger - that NILs create deep gaps WITHIN conferences and make for less interesting TV (and gate) and that this, in turn, exacerbates AD deficits and forces real questions about revenue sports and colleges.

---

1) I mentioned Minnesota above -- they're in the same position wrt Ohio State that Cal is in wrt USC. Really almost everyone in the Big Ten is. Since the Big Ten started east/west divisions in football, Ohio State has won 93% of its games against the seven west division teams. That won't change, because those teams can't keep up with Buckeye boosters using NIL to get better football players to Columbus.

2) If the Pac-12 has 2 or 3 teams that out-NIL the rest, then the same is likely to happen in the Big Ten. Maybe the SEC will have half a dozen teams that go big on NIL. The ACC will have 2 or 3 at most, and their conference would suffer most because they have the most number of really weak football teams.

3) Having said all of that, I don't think the win-loss outcomes will be much different than today. USC, when they have a really good coaching staff and not a bumbling staff, is going to have a much higher average talent level than Cal with or without NIL. Same for Ohio State over Minnesota, Alabama over Missouri, etc., etc. The same group of elite recruits are going to end up at the same small group of teams, only they'll get paid something above the table now.

---

Yes, of course, but I think the difference is that the chances of a Northwestern sneaking into the Rose Bowl has just diminished. Ditto for Wisconsin. Instead of tOSU (or OSU) winning 7 of ten of the BiG championships, they'll win 10 out of 10.

Same will at the Pac12. We could have the 2nd coming of Joe Roth and would still lose to USC's 5* laden Defense. (Joe Roth also had Chuck Muncie in '75.)

Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

I'm concerned that the lethal combo of NIL and the 100% free agency transfer market means that when we do find a Joe Roth or Chunk Muncie they will get offered the big bucks to transfer

Notre Dame AD is saying a lot of things I'm saying ...

some quotes:

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told Sports Illustratedthat he believes the breakup of college sports at the NCAA Division I level is "inevitable"

the only athletic director who is part of the College Football Playoff Management Committee said the fracture lines within the 130-member FBS could leave two disparate approaches: schools that still operate athletics within a traditional educational structure, and those who tie sports to the university in name only.

"On one end of the spectrum, you license the school name and run an independent business that's engaged in sports. The other end of the spectrum, you're integrated into the university in terms of decision making and requirements, and some follow that."

Asked if the current Name, Image and Likeness landscape is sustainable, the answer was a blunt no. Recruiting inducements were not the original idea, but that's what NIL has become in many instances.

"This morphed so quickly into talent acquisition fees that it's just stunning," he said.

Swarbrick predicts that the current NIL marketplace will severely damage Olympic sports, as investments and donations continue to tilt toward revenue-producing sports.

[I would say that some college Olympic sports athletes benefit from NIL in the original intent of the rule change ... example, gymnast Sunisa Lee)




https://www.si.com/college/2022/04/23/notre-dame-jack-swarbrick-division-1-change?utm_email=4441C516F471C589E4B10523B0&g2i_eui=wwv3%2ba39%2b0QP73BsfC%2b%2fvg%3d%3d&g2i_source=newsletter&lctg=4441C516F471C589E4B10523B0&active=yesD&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.si.com%2fcollege%2f2022%2f04%2f23%2fnotre-dame-jack-swarbrick-division-1-change&utm_campaign=bang-mult-nl-pac-12-hotline-nl&utm_content=manual

CalLifer said:

---

Big C said:

---

Is NIL an acronym ("nil"), or an initialism ("N.I.L.")?

---

NIL stands for Name-Image-Likeness. It refers to the ability of players to capitalize or earn money based on their name/image/likeness (i.e. sponsorships).

---

That part I already knew, but thanks.

Big C said:

---

CalLifer said:

---

Big C said:

---

Is NIL an acronym ("nil"), or an initialism ("N.I.L.")?

---

NIL stands for Name-Image-Likeness. It refers to the ability of players to capitalize or earn money based on their name/image/likeness (i.e. sponsorships).

---

That part I already knew, but thanks.

---

Apologies, i didn't properly understand your question.

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

That's another example of why the NIL impact is overstated. In many cases it just makes payments legal that were previously illegal but not penalized. 50 years ago, UCLA had Sam Gilbert; now they can legally give players the cars and swag that the older generation got from Gilbert. 5 years ago, DeAndre Ayton "allegedly" got at least $100,000 from Nike to play at Arizona -- now they can legally give players more than that, but so what? Whether Ayton got $100,000 or $1,000,000 for his 7 months in Tucson, our Bears wouldn't have landed him, and even more so with the dumpster-fire head coaches we've had recently. NIL doesn't even make the top 10 on the list of Cal basketball's problems.

---

Disagree. Sure, the payments that used to be under teh table are now above board. But what you are missing is that many alums who used to donate legally to the Athletic Department (to support their favorite football or basketball team, can now sponsor the NIL pool directly. IMO, that pool paid to players will grow due to the former illegal payments plus the new legal payments. (And the Athletic Department donations will take direct financial hit.)

Conceivably, Uncle Phil could put all 5* & 4* recruits & portal transfers on Nike payroll.

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

That's another example of why the NIL impact is overstated. In many cases it just makes payments legal that were previously illegal but not penalized. 50 years ago, UCLA had Sam Gilbert; now they can legally give players the cars and swag that the older generation got from Gilbert. 5 years ago, DeAndre Ayton "allegedly" got at least $100,000 from Nike to play at Arizona -- now they can legally give players more than that, but so what? Whether Ayton got $100,000 or $1,000,000 for his 7 months in Tucson, our Bears wouldn't have landed him, and even more so with the dumpster-fire head coaches we've had recently. NIL doesn't even make the top 10 on the list of Cal basketball's problems.

---

Disagree. Sure, the payments that used to be under teh table are now above board. But what you are missing is that many alums who used to donate legally to the Athletic Department (to support their favorite football or basketball team, can now sponsor the NIL pool directly. IMO, that pool paid to players will grow due to the former illegal payments plus the new legal payments. (And the Athletic Department donations will take direct financial hit.)

Conceivably, Uncle Phil could put all 5* & 4* recruits & portal transfers on Nike payroll.

---

I'm not missing anything. As I said above, the increased dollar amounts are not directly relevant to Cal as long as the money is going to players who would not have seriously considered Cal in the first place.

If big NIL offers start causing Cal to lose recruits who otherwise would have gone to Cal, eg if Colorado and Wazzu start making it rain with NIL money to get 3-star players, then it's a Cal problem. If 5-star football players who never would have considered Cal in the first place get fat NIL offers from USC and 4 SEC teams, it's not relevant to Cal.

---

We could out bud usc if all they care about is money, possibly. Get Elon Musk an honorary Cal degree

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Agreed. Cal has the potential to be at least as well off as in the pre-NIL period, and considering we have been underachieving, could even move up the ranks, at least in the PAC-12. We have a large, tech savvy, affluent alumni base, we play in a major media market, our rival has few alumni in the area, so we don't really split the market like the SoCal teams. Plus these days advertisers target customers online, so finding Cal fans to sell stuff to is easy.

The only reason to think we will fare poorly is our current poor leadership and a lack of will to compete in the NIL world, due to an attachment to the old system for misguided moralistic reasons, ie "doing it the right way." However, it is possible a strong booster or booster group will emerge, in which case all Knowlton needs to do is cooperate and rubber stamp. Hopefully that happens.



Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

That's another example of why the NIL impact is overstated. In many cases it just makes payments legal that were previously illegal but not penalized. 50 years ago, UCLA had Sam Gilbert; now they can legally give players the cars and swag that the older generation got from Gilbert. 5 years ago, DeAndre Ayton "allegedly" got at least $100,000 from Nike to play at Arizona -- now they can legally give players more than that, but so what? Whether Ayton got $100,000 or $1,000,000 for his 7 months in Tucson, our Bears wouldn't have landed him, and even more so with the dumpster-fire head coaches we've had recently. NIL doesn't even make the top 10 on the list of Cal basketball's problems.

---

Disagree. Sure, the payments that used to be under teh table are now above board. But what you are missing is that many alums who used to donate legally to the Athletic Department (to support their favorite football or basketball team, can now sponsor the NIL pool directly. IMO, that pool paid to players will grow due to the former illegal payments plus the new legal payments. (And the Athletic Department donations will take direct financial hit.)

Conceivably, Uncle Phil could put all 5* & 4* recruits & portal transfers on Nike payroll.

---

I'm not missing anything. As I said above, the increased dollar amounts are not directly relevant to Cal as long as the money is going to players who would not have seriously considered Cal in the first place.

If big NIL offers start causing Cal to lose recruits who otherwise would have gone to Cal, eg if Colorado and Wazzu start making it rain with NIL money to get 3-star players, then it's a Cal problem. If 5-star football players who never would have considered Cal in the first place get fat NIL offers from USC and 4 SEC teams, it's not relevant to Cal.

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Does anyone actually think we have a chance to beat the NIL-paid Bruins or 'Zona in basketball? If the games just become routs, the fan interest will wane.

---

That's another example of why the NIL impact is overstated. In many cases it just makes payments legal that were previously illegal but not penalized. 50 years ago, UCLA had Sam Gilbert; now they can legally give players the cars and swag that the older generation got from Gilbert. 5 years ago, DeAndre Ayton "allegedly" got at least $100,000 from Nike to play at Arizona -- now they can legally give players more than that, but so what? Whether Ayton got $100,000 or $1,000,000 for his 7 months in Tucson, our Bears wouldn't have landed him, and even more so with the dumpster-fire head coaches we've had recently. NIL doesn't even make the top 10 on the list of Cal basketball's problems.

---

Disagree. Sure, the payments that used to be under teh table are now above board. But what you are missing is that many alums who used to donate legally to the Athletic Department (to support their favorite football or basketball team, can now sponsor the NIL pool directly. IMO, that pool paid to players will grow due to the former illegal payments plus the new legal payments. (And the Athletic Department donations will take direct financial hit.)

Conceivably, Uncle Phil could put all 5* & 4* recruits & portal transfers on Nike payroll.

---

I'm not missing anything. As I said above, the increased dollar amounts are not directly relevant to Cal as long as the money is going to players who would not have seriously considered Cal in the first place.

If big NIL offers start causing Cal to lose recruits who otherwise would have gone to Cal, eg if Colorado and Wazzu start making it rain with NIL money to get 3-star players, then it's a Cal problem. If 5-star football players who never would have considered Cal in the first place get fat NIL offers from USC and 4 SEC teams, it's not relevant to Cal.

---

So what you are saying is that Cal will continue to have a talent deficit. With that I agree. However, IMO, it will only get worse with NIL. Every so often, Cal was able to recruit a x* talent, but those days are long gone.

---

That is the thing - Cal really ONLY has competed when it has been able to grab a coupe of *4s. True over in football as well. Usually mixed with diamonds in the rough but we never have NOT had a couple of 4* difference makers.

BTW - I miss the **** out of Shockey. Misogynist as hell but at least entertaining and fun. Which blog is he posting on?

CalLifer said:

---

Big C said:

---

Is NIL an acronym ("nil"), or an initialism ("N.I.L.")?

---

NIL stands for Name-Image-Likeness. It refers to the ability of players to capitalize or earn money based on their name/image/likeness (i.e. sponsorships).

---

Nope it just says what Cals chances of making the Football playoffs or March Madness ever again.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Some of the worst basketball I've ever seen. I feel bad for the Cal fans watching and praying for 4 wins. God that sux.

---

I bet Fox will load up the OOC schedule with cupcakes, knowing those will be the few wins he'll get. Tinkle will fix Oregon st.s problems. UDub has a lot of talent coming back. Cal might not finish 12th because I sense the furds might have a melt-down season.

Big Dog said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

The other host was on the other side, and said the way NIL works is a good thing. He graduated from Middle Tennessee State, and said if his school can win a national championship with NIL then he's all for it.

---

That other host is either naive or a moron to think that Middle Tennessee State will be able to compete for a Natty under the new NIL rules.

---

Uh, he is a graduate of Middle Tennessee State after all.

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Zona can still get players paid the same way Donut Boy did -- get Nike to pay 'em. Only now it's legal.

Also, they have big donors for hoops. One of them is the guy that got in a scuffle with Kevin O'Neill at the Pac-12 tournament several years ago.

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Zona can still get players paid the same way Donut Boy did -- get Nike to pay 'em. Only now it's legal.

Also, they have big donors for hoops. One of them is the guy that got in a scuffle with Kevin O'Neill at the Pac-12 tournament several years ago.

---

If Nike is going to pay the players, they can pay Cal players too. Just let Cal players negotiate their own shoe contracts.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Zona can still get players paid the same way Donut Boy did -- get Nike to pay 'em. Only now it's legal.

Also, they have big donors for hoops. One of them is the guy that got in a scuffle with Kevin O'Neill at the Pac-12 tournament several years ago.

---

If Nike is going to pay the players, they can pay Cal players too. Just let Cal players negotiate their own shoe contracts.

---

Except Nike may decide to de-emphasize small market teams -- except Uncle Phil's alma mater -- and gravitate their big bucks to large market teams for more eyeballs. I could see Nike striating to pump money into USC b'ball instead of 'Zona, for example. (If I was in their Marketing Dept, that's the analyses that I'd be doing.)

There are way too many people that think this is tied to tangible marketing returns. It is about consortiums of donors that give 6 figures to athletic departments cutting out the middle man. Don't think Nike, this Uncle Bob's Used Cars of Tuscon. I

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Arizona isn't quite basketball royalty like Kentucky or UCLA but it's close. At one point they made the Tourney 25 years in a row.

Remember, the players still have to be admitted and graduate.

They aren't going to be losing out to Cal very often.

socaltownie said:

---

There are way too many people that think this is tied to tangible marketing returns. It is about consortiums of donors that give 6 figures to athletic departments cutting out the middle man. Don't think Nike, this Uncle Bob's Used Cars of Tuscon. I

---

Agreed. I think the dividing line will be which schools have big bucks donors who think splashing cash on potentially one and done players is a good use of their money. I would suspect Cal might not have that many boosters with those kind of priorities. I have loved Cal sports all my life, and been a small donor for much of that time, but even if I had big Bucks, it would be difficult for me to justify throwing cash around on a "pay to play" basis to individual players.

I guess that's why the consortium idea is probably a good one, as it can sell donors on the idea of making an ongoing commitment to the program, rather than counting on billionaires (Like at Miami) to toss six figure deals at recruits and transfers. It will be interesting to see what will happen with those kind of donors if someone they "sponsored" flames out dramatically. Might have a chilling effect on future payouts.

One thing is for certain, the next couple of years will be like the Wild Wild West, and it seems unlikely the NCAA will be doing much, if any, "enforcement."

Im sure Iasac Curtis will be glad to hear that.

BerkeleyBAT said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

There are way too many people that think this is tied to tangible marketing returns. It is about consortiums of donors that give 6 figures to athletic departments cutting out the middle man. Don't think Nike, this Uncle Bob's Used Cars of Tuscon. I

---

Agreed. I think the dividing line will be which schools have big bucks donors who think splashing cash on potentially one and done players is a good use of their money. I would suspect Cal might not have that many boosters with those kind of priorities. I have loved Cal sports all my life, and been a small donor for much of that time, but even if I had big Bucks, it would be difficult for me to justify throwing cash around on a "pay to play" basis to individual players.

I guess that's why the consortium idea is probably a good one, as it can sell donors on the idea of making an ongoing commitment to the program, rather than counting on billionaires (Like at Miami) to toss six figure deals at recruits and transfers. It will be interesting to see what will happen with those kind of donors if someone they "sponsored" flames out dramatically. Might have a chilling effect on future payouts.

One thing is for certain, the next couple of years will be like the Wild Wild West, and it seems unlikely the NCAA will be doing much, if any, "enforcement."

---

The NCAA has their hands tied. Now that players can make money, any attempt to restrict that will subject them to an antitrust case with potential for treble damages. The Supreme Court has signaled they will not intervene. Kavanaugh has staked out a pure libertarian "let the market rule" position. The liberal side is not going to rule against the players. The only chance would be if Congress passed an antitrust exemption like they did for baseball decades ago ;which the owners screwed up). Congress won't act unless/until there is enough public outcry, which seems unlikely anytime soon. No one really wants to defend the old system.

The best the NCAA can do is standardize roster size and help organize divisions and leagues to maintain competitiveness.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Zona can still get players paid the same way Donut Boy did -- get Nike to pay 'em. Only now it's legal.

Also, they have big donors for hoops. One of them is the guy that got in a scuffle with Kevin O'Neill at the Pac-12 tournament several years ago.

---

If Nike is going to pay the players, they can pay Cal players too. Just let Cal players negotiate their own shoe contracts.

---

Except Nike may decide to de-emphasize small market teams -- except Uncle Phil's alma mater -- and gravitate their big bucks to large market teams for more eyeballs. I could see Nike striating to pump money into USC b'ball instead of 'Zona, for example. (If I was in their Marketing Dept, that's the analyses that I'd be doing.)

---

The SF Bay Area is the 4th largest market in the US, and no one really owns the New York market. We are (potentially) a very big market team. Nike sells a lot of shoes and apparel in the Bay Area.

calumnus said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

calumnus said:

---

62bear said:

---

Yeah, I'm going with the optimistic stance of "it takes fewer NIL-induced recruits to be a contender in basketball than football" so I think we've got a puncher's chance.

---

In theory, Cal is in no worse a position under the new rules than the old ones, and potentially could be better off.

However, under the old rules we only occasionally scratched our potential and usually fell far short. That most likely continues.

---

It depends on who can and wants to pay the players.

---

Yes, and Cal has a large, very affluent, tech savvy alumni base and is located in a major market. Our alumni have made huge donations to the university in the past. We have strong alumni connections in professional sports administration and sports agencies…

Sure USC, UCLA, Oregon….maybe UW in the western US are in an equal or better position, but who else? San Diego State? Texas?

Potential is not results, but our ceiling is high.

---

Excellent point - all of the recent changes make recruiting based more on market forces and less on tradition. I would add Stanford and possibly Utah to the list and Gonzaga in terms of MBB (can't recall - but they have an angel donor from Spokane - similar to Charles Koch at Wichita State). But I don't think Colorado, OSU, WSU, ASU or UA can compete.

Sort of ironic, that a school like UA which was offering six figures under the table, will now likely lose the bidding wars now that its legal

---

Zona can still get players paid the same way Donut Boy did -- get Nike to pay 'em. Only now it's legal.

Also, they have big donors for hoops. One of them is the guy that got in a scuffle with Kevin O'Neill at the Pac-12 tournament several years ago.

---

If Nike is going to pay the players, they can pay Cal players too. Just let Cal players negotiate their own shoe contracts.

---

Except Nike may decide to de-emphasize small market teams -- except Uncle Phil's alma mater -- and gravitate their big bucks to large market teams for more eyeballs. I could see Nike striating to pump money into USC b'ball instead of 'Zona, for example. (If I was in their Marketing Dept, that's the analyses that I'd be doing.)

---

The SF Bay Area is the 4th largest market in the US, and no one really owns the New York market. We are (potentially) a very big market team. Nike sells a lot of shoes and apparel in the Bay Area.

---

That may be true, but what does it have to do with my post, Nike adn Cal? (hint: Cal has a contract with Under Armor, while USC is a Nike school.)