Honestly, that seems like a great fit.

And the equivalent of late 1st round pick NBA money and higher than Scotty Jr's bargain basement Grizzlies contract.

He was my favorite player to watch this season and will be a beast to play against next year if he ends up at FSU.

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

---

Of course they do this. We got the stadium financing done using some of those assumption. The problem is we have unique challenges here, little in the way of innovative thinking, anywhere from a hostile to tepidly supportive administration, and no real bureaucratic political talent in the department to galvanize change.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

---

I disagree that this is the court's fault or that they are engaging in policy making. In fact, I'd say it is the opposite. They are specifically not engaging in policy making. Changing their opinion based on what "the actual result" might be would be engaging in policy making.

Congress and the President could pass a law. That is up to them. They haven't. The court's job is to follow the law wherever it goes. For instance, is this a restraint of trade or not? If yes, you can't do it.

I'm not naive at all. This is pay for play. But you are looking at NIL too narrowly. Monetary return is not the only thing I can get. I can get the pride of having a player show up at a kid's birthday party. I can get the feeling that every time a player makes a 3 pointer, he is representing me because I paid him. What limiting this to NIL and not overtly pay for play means is that I as a purchaser of NIL I can't force them to play. That's my problem. I take the risk when I do the deal.

All the court is saying is that universities have to operate like everyone else. (unless a law is passed, which is the role of Congress and the President, not the courts). Now it is up to universities to either establish policy within the law or get a law passed.

There is an obvious solution and I would say an obvious end game to this. Universities recognizing collective bargaining rights and signing a collective bargaining agreement. That is the only solution here. But universities are still hanging on to the notion that they can ultimately screw the players by getting restrictions in their ability to transfer and negotiate agreements. Well, that ain't going to happen.

If you recognize their ability to collectively bargain, you can adopt limits on transfers in exchange for a revenue share model and reasonable opportunity for players to test the market. You can allow for multi-year contracts, some form of free agency, some form of restricted free agency where schools have right of first refusal, etc. That would slow things down a lot without going back to a system where universities, coaches and administrators were making gobs of money at the expense of players who created most of the value and were not allowed to charge for their services.

This isn't the court's fault. Universities got away with screwing over the players for years and they don't want to let go of the gravy train. They could stop all of this by negotiating agreements with each other and the players that would put in sensible policies that would adequately compensate the players while restoring order to the system. The sooner that universities accept the new normal and move to do this, the sooner things will normalize. It is up to them now.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

This is the thing I think Cal needs to consider. If you can't keep a player of Pippen's caliber, how do you compete? When someone says we can offer competitive deals is that by 2025 numbers or 2026 numbers? And it's going to keep escalating so what about 2027? 2030

No offense, but Pippen isn't THAT good. He is an above average to good player. He isn't awesome. He isn't great. I wouldn't even call him "really good". Same for Ames. Do I think Pippen is worth $3M? No. But if he can get it, he can get it, and we are left empty handed.

Is this something we can keep up with? I pointed out that we lost Bruce Snyder for the equivalent of $1.2M in today's dollars. A Bruce Snyder in 1991 level coach is easily worth $5M today. So we are looking at 4X and growing.

The issue that I see is that people are willing to chuck insane dollars at college revenue sports that long passed making economic sense and are obviously being spent for emotional reasons. Frankly, I don't think Cal has that kind of insane support for college revenue sports. Largely because Cal and its graduates, including big money graduates, have other priorities and largely because frankly our big money graduates are smart enough to know it isn't the highest use of their money.

We are already at a point where there is a large group of players who are able to make more money in college than they ever can in the NBA or abroad. Not the top tier players for certain, but there is a tier below that where they just aren't going to get that compensation at the pro level. Someone like Ames, IMO, falls into that bucket. It's kind of crazy

I've said this before. Cal is always behind this curve. Every 15 or 20 years or so they are willing to "go all in" as they are with football now, and finally put up what may be a competitive package for one year. But they never keep up with the constant escalation and rapidly fall back behind. We spent half a billion dollars on a refurbished stadium and state of the art training facilities and our program did not progress one iota.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, other than being realistic about what we can and can't do and have a plan into the future. Frankly, for basketball to thrive we need to sign 5 Pippens. It is problematic if we can't sign one. If you want to compete at the highest level, you need 3 Pippens and 2 much better than Pippens.
Pippen is $3M now? Next year's Pippen will be $3.5M or $4M. What is the plan for that? It isn't enough to get donors to foot the bill one year. They need to commit to doing it every year.

---

Pippen is the son of an NBA Hall of Famer who attends almost all of his games. That has a lot of value to programs that do something called "marketing."

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

This is the thing I think Cal needs to consider. If you can't keep a player of Pippen's caliber, how do you compete? When someone says we can offer competitive deals is that by 2025 numbers or 2026 numbers? And it's going to keep escalating so what about 2027? 2030

No offense, but Pippen isn't THAT good. He is an above average to good player. He isn't awesome. He isn't great. I wouldn't even call him "really good". Same for Ames. Do I think Pippen is worth $3M? No. But if he can get it, he can get it, and we are left empty handed.

Is this something we can keep up with? I pointed out that we lost Bruce Snyder for the equivalent of $1.2M in today's dollars. A Bruce Snyder in 1991 level coach is easily worth $5M today. So we are looking at 4X and growing.

The issue that I see is that people are willing to chuck insane dollars at college revenue sports that long passed making economic sense and are obviously being spent for emotional reasons. Frankly, I don't think Cal has that kind of insane support for college revenue sports. Largely because Cal and its graduates, including big money graduates, have other priorities and largely because frankly our big money graduates are smart enough to know it isn't the highest use of their money.

We are already at a point where there is a large group of players who are able to make more money in college than they ever can in the NBA or abroad. Not the top tier players for certain, but there is a tier below that where they just aren't going to get that compensation at the pro level. Someone like Ames, IMO, falls into that bucket. It's kind of crazy

I've said this before. Cal is always behind this curve. Every 15 or 20 years or so they are willing to "go all in" as they are with football now, and finally put up what may be a competitive package for one year. But they never keep up with the constant escalation and rapidly fall back behind. We spent half a billion dollars on a refurbished stadium and state of the art training facilities and our program did not progress one iota.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, other than being realistic about what we can and can't do and have a plan into the future. Frankly, for basketball to thrive we need to sign 5 Pippens. It is problematic if we can't sign one. If you want to compete at the highest level, you need 3 Pippens and 2 much better than Pippens.
Pippen is $3M now? Next year's Pippen will be $3.5M or $4M. What is the plan for that? It isn't enough to get donors to foot the bill one year. They need to commit to doing it every year.

---

Pippen is the son of an NBA Hall of Famer who attends almost all of his games. That has a lot of value to programs that do something called "marketing."

---

Then maybe Cal needs to stop taking son's of NBA players if they are overvalued.

You guys keep coming up with reasons why individual players are overvalued, but we are literally o-fer anyone of our players anyone wants in 3 years (assuming we don't pull any of these guys back). So far, Petraitis is the best player we have gotten to return in 3 years. Not sustainable.

No one is ever coming back, without $$$, unless you're talking about some sort of a student/athlete.

I think pippin and Ames are "really very good"

Let's say Pippen is a second round pick. That means he's probably getting paid more than he would as a first year NBA player. I think this anomaly, plus the constant transfers tells me the situation isn't stable and will be replaced with some system that caps payments and restricts transfers. Imagine the NBA with no draft or trade restrlictions. That's what we have at the college level. Either that, or we devolve into a few 'super teams'.

HoopDreams said:

---

I think pippin and Ames are "really very good"

---

They are above average players who carry the load on a team of below average to average players. Though, I could see Pippen developing into a very good player

Ames is who he is which is largely the same player who he was at Virgnia just with a lot more opportunities. His stats are strikingly similar just with a lot more shots taken.

LudwigsFountain said:

---

Let's say Pippen is a second round pick. That means he's probably getting paid more than he would as a first year NBA player. I think this anomaly, plus the constant transfers tells me the situation isn't stable and will be replaced with some system that caps payments and restricts transfers. Imagine the NBA with no draft or trade restrlictions. That's what we have at the college level. Either that, or we devolve into a few 'super teams'.

---

I don't agree. The NBA is a business. They pay guys a salary that largely results in their teams making a profit. There is some ego driven spending, but that only goes so far.

College is filled with fans, some of whom have a ton of money, who are fixated with their school winning and will pay far beyond reasonable dollars to see that happen. NBA teams don't have donors. College teams don't have salary caps.

If these guys had to play for the Modesto Mudhens in a minor league system, 90% of them would make squat because nobody cares if Modesto wins the national minor league championship and their value would entirely be what the major league team projected their contribution someday to be. Change Modesto to University of Michigan and you have hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly care if they win the national minor league championship and willing to chuck a lot of money to make that happen.

The money is coming from the attachment to the school. If you think that is not sustainable, compare coaching salaries for top college coaches and NBA and NFL. It's sustainable

LudwigsFountain said:

---

Let's say Pippen is a second round pick. That means he's probably getting paid more than he would as a first year NBA player. I think this anomaly, plus the constant transfers tells me the situation isn't stable and will be replaced with some system that caps payments and restricts transfers. Imagine the NBA with no draft or trade restrlictions. That's what we have at the college level. Either that, or we devolve into a few 'super teams'.

---

"we devolve into a few 'super teams'"

done

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

This is the thing I think Cal needs to consider. If you can't keep a player of Pippen's caliber, how do you compete? When someone says we can offer competitive deals is that by 2025 numbers or 2026 numbers? And it's going to keep escalating so what about 2027? 2030

No offense, but Pippen isn't THAT good. He is an above average to good player. He isn't awesome. He isn't great. I wouldn't even call him "really good". Same for Ames. Do I think Pippen is worth $3M? No. But if he can get it, he can get it, and we are left empty handed.

Is this something we can keep up with? I pointed out that we lost Bruce Snyder for the equivalent of $1.2M in today's dollars. A Bruce Snyder in 1991 level coach is easily worth $5M today. So we are looking at 4X and growing.

The issue that I see is that people are willing to chuck insane dollars at college revenue sports that long passed making economic sense and are obviously being spent for emotional reasons. Frankly, I don't think Cal has that kind of insane support for college revenue sports. Largely because Cal and its graduates, including big money graduates, have other priorities and largely because frankly our big money graduates are smart enough to know it isn't the highest use of their money.

We are already at a point where there is a large group of players who are able to make more money in college than they ever can in the NBA or abroad. Not the top tier players for certain, but there is a tier below that where they just aren't going to get that compensation at the pro level. Someone like Ames, IMO, falls into that bucket. It's kind of crazy

I've said this before. Cal is always behind this curve. Every 15 or 20 years or so they are willing to "go all in" as they are with football now, and finally put up what may be a competitive package for one year. But they never keep up with the constant escalation and rapidly fall back behind. We spent half a billion dollars on a refurbished stadium and state of the art training facilities and our program did not progress one iota.

I'm not arguing for or against anything, other than being realistic about what we can and can't do and have a plan into the future. Frankly, for basketball to thrive we need to sign 5 Pippens. It is problematic if we can't sign one. If you want to compete at the highest level, you need 3 Pippens and 2 much better than Pippens.
Pippen is $3M now? Next year's Pippen will be $3.5M or $4M. What is the plan for that? It isn't enough to get donors to foot the bill one year. They need to commit to doing it every year.

---

Do we think the money runs out? It sounds like in some parts fans are checking out. If that is true, attendance falls (not as far to fall here), and TV ratings fall and eventually some marketing $ dry up. I think the going is good for players right now, but is there any chance the bottom will fallout....beyond maybe 30 programs in the country?

I just can't see people giving the required money year over year to have players attend for one year. But I guess in some cases there are ultra wealthy donors who can give a few mil a year and not notice its gone.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

LudwigsFountain said:

---

Let's say Pippen is a second round pick. That means he's probably getting paid more than he would as a first year NBA player. I think this anomaly, plus the constant transfers tells me the situation isn't stable and will be replaced with some system that caps payments and restricts transfers. Imagine the NBA with no draft or trade restrlictions. That's what we have at the college level. Either that, or we devolve into a few 'super teams'.

---

I don't agree. The NBA is a business. They pay guys a salary that largely results in their teams making a profit. There is some ego driven spending, but that only goes so far.

College is filled with fans, some of whom have a ton of money, who are fixated with their school winning and will pay far beyond reasonable dollars to see that happen. NBA teams don't have donors. College teams don't have salary caps.

If these guys had to play for the Modesto Mudhens in a minor league system, 90% of them would make squat because nobody cares if Modesto wins the national minor league championship and their value would entirely be what the major league team projected their contribution someday to be. Change Modesto to University of Michigan and you have hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly care if they win the national minor league championship and willing to chuck a lot of money to make that happen.

The money is coming from the attachment to the school. If you think that is not sustainable, compare coaching salaries for top college coaches and NBA and NFL. It's sustainable

---

You've got a good point. But I suspect it doesn't apply across the board. The last two years we've had teams that were enjoyable to watch and attendance was still horrible. Maybe that's just a hangover from the unwatchable years or poor marketing, but I think the constant player churn is also contributing; it certrainly is for me. That's why I think if the system doesn't change, we end up with a few teams that embrace the situation as it is, with the rest acting as a minor league.

"…the rest acting as a minor league."

A minor league, in the Professional Minor League?

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

---

Donating to cancer research versus donating for these kids to play basketball are two completely different things so that's not a great analogy. And changing topics (sorry), let's not forget these kids are still getting a full ride at a rather prestigious university - one they wouldn't have gotten into without the sport they are playing and a price tag at the end of the day that would cost others nearly half-a-million dollars. Of course, it's not like any of them are going to class anyway - the student athlete label is a complete joke - yet they will still get a degree from Cal like the rest of us (assuming they stay). The whole thing is comical.

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

---

Donating to cancer research versus donating for these kids to play basketball are two completely different things so that's not a great analogy. And changing topics (sorry), let's not forget these kids are still getting a full ride at a rather prestigious university - one they wouldn't have gotten into without the sport they are playing and a price tag at the end of the day that would cost others nearly half-a-million dollars. Of course, it's not like any of them are going to class anyway - the student athlete label is a complete joke - yet they still still get a degree from Cal like the rest of us. The whole thing is comical.

---

Substitute the Opera or SF Symphony for Cancer research. The point remains - your individual donation isn't really changing outcomes but is it what YOU feel that matters. I am too much a student of Berkeley to impose what matters to me on others. Let a 1000 flowers bloom.

I think the counter argument to this is that they are generating millions. Not the AD. Not the Coach. The players. If the university chooses (as Cal has done) to provide the players compensation AND still pay the AD and coaches multiples of millions that seems like not their fault.

Finally, I think you paint WAY too broad a brush. Yes many kids play just for the payday or for the sport. But so many others are there for the education as well. Cal has a LONG list of players like that and their lives (and I might argue ours) have been enriched by watching them play (and ultimately walk) at commencement.

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

---

Donating to cancer research versus donating for these kids to play basketball are two completely different things so that's not a great analogy. And changing topics (sorry), let's not forget these kids are still getting a full ride at a rather prestigious university - one they wouldn't have gotten into without the sport they are playing and a price tag at the end of the day that would cost others nearly half-a-million dollars. Of course, it's not like any of them are going to class anyway - the student athlete label is a complete joke - yet they still still get a degree from Cal like the rest of us. The whole thing is comical.

---

Substitute the Opera or SF Symphony for Cancer research. The point remains - your individual donation isn't really changing outcomes but is it what YOU feel that matters. I am too much a student of Berkeley to impose what matters to me on others. Let a 1000 flowers bloom.

I think the counter argument to this is that they are generating millions. Not the AD. Not the Coach. The players. If the university chooses (as Cal has done) to provide the players compensation AND still pay the AD and coaches multiples of millions that seems like not their fault.

Finally, I think you paint WAY too broad a brush. Yes many kids play just for the payday or for the sport. But so many others are there for the education as well. Cal has a LONG list of players like that and their lives (and I might argue ours) have been enriched by watching them play (and ultimately walk) at commencement.

---

I know the counter argument which is why the old system had to change - albeit given how selective top schools are today and with rising tuition costs, the benefits remain significant and seem to be ignored. However, I don't think this new system is the answer either.

As for academics, I don't think I am painting with a broad brush. Be realistic - the estimate is that nearly 50% of college basketball players are currently in the portal. Classes at semester based schools are not finished - you assume they are all dutifully finishing out their classes the rest of the semester while they look to move? And what classes transfer and which don't? Have they taken a subject that requires multiple levels and does the new school offer the subsequent class? And not to mention how many days on the road with these new conference alignments - you honestly believe they are being held to the same academic standards as the rest of the class when they are missing so much with travel, games, and practice? In the non-revenue sports, the majority are in it if for the education. For the revenue sports, with today's system, I doubt the percentage is very high. And if players like Pippen are getting paid $3 million, what does it matter anyway - just go through the motions at that point and who cares if/when you graduate?

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Good for him, but wow, just wow. If a player at Pippen's level is commanding $3 million, this model is really not sustainable. Just look at Cal's recent Challenge Grant - it only raised about $750,000!! I gave a small amount, but looking at that with this figure for Pippen, makes the whole thing comical! Personally, I enjoy watching/following Cal sports, but my life is great with or without it. If the amount supporters have to pony up is approaching that level, then it really just doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

Absolutely (or at least in the short term)!!

This raise _IS_ possible if you are firing on all cylinders to extract wealth from the 1% and from the private sector that can justify the expenses as a marketing/client relations investment. I mean I would never spend it from my own $$ but every Sunday people spend 5 and 6 figures for a lux box to watch the NFL.

But Cal (and I would argue most) colleges are not currently maximized to do that. They could be. I am not sure it is why colleges play sports but if you did another remodel of CMS and added 30 or 40 suites you probably could start to get on that pathway.

That was what led me to piss off Seb. Not that I disagree with him (I don't) that getting big donations from high net worth individuals is the only viable pathway. I just think that it is pretty problematic over the long run and trying to set up an ICA to do that really starts to strain the reason for doing it in the first place - at a school like Cal which is a public state R1 state university with highly selective admissions.

That is really what I wish Lyons would do - get some really smart people in the room and do what hundreds of thousands of american businesses do each and every day - make a best case prediction about the direction a key environment is moving in, what would be required to compete in that changed environment and whether that is a good spend or if there are alterantives. My main frustration with Cal athletics (and maybe just BI) is that this doesn't seem to have been done at all.....and when you start having MID level ACC teams spend 3 million for one player we truly are down the rabbit hole if this is the long term trend.

PS. A person on my team comes from "sponsor relations" in the pro sports world. One day we got to talking about that part of her career. She literally said "I was paid to be their best friend. Call them up and say "lets go play golf and run out tickets and swag to their beach house." It was eye opening in respect to what entities that really want to get folks to write 7 figure checks do for something like "marketing value of logo placement" on an outfield wall. A cal committed to Seb's strategy probably has about 20 recent co-ed grads whose job entails being whales best friends.

---

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but a key difference between professional sports and the current set-up for college seems to be that college fans are now being expected to pay for both seeing the games (seats/boxes/TV) and paying the players, no? How much of the NIL is coming from corporations/advertisers? Based on the many posts on BI urging fans to donate so Cal has the NIL to assemble a competitive roster makes it sound like it's all on the individual fans. If that's the case and it takes $3 million for players at Pippen's level, then I can see why fans are checking out. Honestly, I'm already regretting the small donation I made - rather pointless at these levels.

---

Dont regret it. Philanthropy is about the psychic benefit you derive. I mean My donation to the american Cancer society is not going to make or break research but rather gives ME satisfaction I am supporting something I can about.

On marketing value this is what irks me about the SCOTUS decision. Yes, for a FEW players and a FEW examples there is value in their NIL. Olivia Dunn should be able to participate in women's gynamistics and earn money as an influencer. But when the court gets into policy making they do so from such a point of ignorance. They don't study the issue. They have only what their clerk reads in a brief. It is not an indepth analysis and so while Olivia Dunn (or obannon thinking about a video game) are good examples the actual result is pay for play without any guard rails like....I don't know....employment status to hold people to employment contracts because the vast majority of these kids provide the vast majority of companies ZILCH in marketing value for their Name image and likeness.

---

Donating to cancer research versus donating for these kids to play basketball are two completely different things so that's not a great analogy. And changing topics (sorry), let's not forget these kids are still getting a full ride at a rather prestigious university - one they wouldn't have gotten into without the sport they are playing and a price tag at the end of the day that would cost others nearly half-a-million dollars. Of course, it's not like any of them are going to class anyway - the student athlete label is a complete joke - yet they still still get a degree from Cal like the rest of us. The whole thing is comical.

---

Substitute the Opera or SF Symphony for Cancer research. The point remains - your individual donation isn't really changing outcomes but is it what YOU feel that matters. I am too much a student of Berkeley to impose what matters to me on others. Let a 1000 flowers bloom.

I think the counter argument to this is that they are generating millions. Not the AD. Not the Coach. The players. If the university chooses (as Cal has done) to provide the players compensation AND still pay the AD and coaches multiples of millions that seems like not their fault.

Finally, I think you paint WAY too broad a brush. Yes many kids play just for the payday or for the sport. But so many others are there for the education as well. Cal has a LONG list of players like that and their lives (and I might argue ours) have been enriched by watching them play (and ultimately walk) at commencement.

---

I'm sorry, but with half of D1 players in the portal it is hard to take seriously that many revenue sport athletes care about the education. There are some, but it isn't the bulk.

I completely support their getting paid and getting their fair share. But they couldn't couldn't produce this kind of revenue without the name of a university on their chests.

I wonder how much the noise/distraction of MM potentially entering the portal to ASU factored into Ames and Pippen's own decisions to enter the portal.

I'm glad that MM ended up staying, and I hope he can continue to build up our program.

I'm done! Players don't have any loyalty anymore

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Looks like dort will return. Ames is rumored to be getting generation wealth and this is likely his one payday as not nba frame.

---

Great to have Dort back!

Good for Ames. Will be interesting to see where he lands. Just hope people are taking care of their finances for them. Also curious if state income taxes come into play - $3 million in places like Florida and Texas are different than $3 million in California.

---

Gotta say when I was at Cal tax rates were about the last thing on my mind.

stu said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Looks like dort will return. Ames is rumored to be getting generation wealth and this is likely his one payday as not nba frame.

---

Great to have Dort back!

Good for Ames. Will be interesting to see where he lands. Just hope people are taking care of their finances for them. Also curious if state income taxes come into play - $3 million in places like Florida and Texas are different than $3 million in California.

---

Gotta say when I was at Cal tax rates were about the last thing on my mind.

---

Me neither, but then again, I wasn't making millions of dollars at the time!

MiZery said:

---

Justin Pippen has been offered around 3 million dollars to go @FSUHoops, per source.

— GoldenBearzone (@goldenbearzone) April 8, 2026

---

Out of curiosity, I looked at the various rankings of players in the portal and Pippen is not ranked anywhere and certainly not in the top echelon, which is not surprising. Are we sure this $3 million number is even legit?

LudwigsFountain said:

---

Let's say Pippen is a second round pick. That means he's probably getting paid more than he would as a first year NBA player. I think this anomaly, plus the constant transfers tells me the situation isn't stable and will be replaced with some system that caps payments and restricts transfers. Imagine the NBA with no draft or trade restrlictions. That's what we have at the college level. Either that, or we devolve into a few 'super teams'.

---

No offense, but assuming that makes the rest of your statement irrelevant. Good college player, NBA? No.

People bring up collective bargaining as an approach to rationalizing the whole deal of paying players, but I'm curious how those negotiations would work. A big part of negotiations is balancing short-term and long-term interests of the parties involved. With professional leagues vs players unions, both parties have some interest in long term stability and are willing to sacrifice some short-term gain to keep the larger machine functional. Salary caps and minimum veteran salaries are examples of this. Players want to play as long as they can and, of course, teams want mechanisms to ensure they can compete even if market sizes are unequal. Even agents benefit as it's easier to get their commission from an established client than have to hustle up new ones. Plus, each team has a union rep, so players are involved.

But 18-20 year-old college players want to make as much $ as they can and get to "The Association" as quickly as they can. At best, they're only involve for 3-4 years and thus have the shortest of short-term perspectives. Their agents are the same - get the client as much revenue as possible now, but real goal is the NBA. Only the universities care about the long term because they have to keep the machine going.

So, if only one of the three parties (players, agents, universities) cares about the long-term, coming to a successful bargaining agreement will be tough.

Good thing we don't have a president who is one

1099-INT Form: If you bought a bond between interest payment dates, the seller is taxed on the interest accrued up to the sale date. The 1099-INT you receive at year-end includes this amount, which you must deduct. stu said:

---

Gotta say when I was at Cal tax rates were about the last thing on my mind.

---

me,too, I was just hoping that some day I would make $10K a year so I could have a nice life LOL