Who is going to be there for many of the 99% that never make the league and have no college degree because they transferred multiple times while squandering whatever NIL money they made after paying their "NIL agent". Asking for a friend. 

Let's just say you made $150k in the NIL money for 4 years in MD. You would probably pay your NIL agent 15-20% = $30k. So you have $120k each year minus federal/state taxes (let's say 30% after deductions) and 15.3% FICA. So you are left with 65-70K each year. Now there is no more basketball and you have no degree. This is what the NCAA is promoting.

Solution. Treat college athletics based on academics and degrees. You can get one immediate transfer as an undergrad and one as a grad transfer. Period. You have to be academically eligible based on a minimum standards as far as courses and progress towards graduation. If you don't like it go pro. NCAA needs to grow a pair and reassert that this is about student-athletes and not athletes and if a college education isn't about an education, you need to find something else.

Alum1 wrote:

GW0509 wrote:

Not one of our portalers, but reports are that DMV’er Jeremy Roach is getting $1.5 million to transfer to Baylor.

Making more than the minimum NBA salary. At what point does the NBA start treating college ball a threat to the G League?

 
Seriously! That’s just silly money.

Don't think that is close to true. Jeremy himself said on X ...

https://twitter.com/Jeremyroach10/status/1781175803000086534

There are sort of two things at play here. First is GW's standing currently. In the short-term, we can have success although sustained success will be very difficult due to NIL and the transfer portal. We are in the era of mercenary basketball which makes it very difficult at MM or LM schools to maintain long-term success as rosters will be in flux and talent will be raided by HMs. So can CC hit it for a year here and there by making the right decisions ... absolutely.

Long-term is an entirely a different story. There is going to be a great break-up of the NCAA and simply put when that happens, GW (along with many other schools) will be left to the side. Hartford was the canary in coal mine. 10 years from now I doubt GW athletics will resemble anything like we've seen over the past 30 years. Schools will determine the juice isn't worth the squeeze of trying to compete with P5/6 multi-million dollar NIL budgets. I could see GW becoming not a Patriot League program but rather a D3 program. If you look at the profile of a school such as Case Western in terms of endowment, breadth of academic programs and location there isn't much difference. The big difference is the cost of athletics and at some point it will become prohibitive for GW just like most of these D3 schools (who regularly competed against D1 schools) determined years ago. The answer will not be Patriot League it will be a D3 model. You can choose to deny this all you want but it's going to happen absent NIL disappearing (and you can't put that genie back in the bottle). I would not be a long-term holder of GW athletics stock.

trops_fc wrote:

The Ross-Man! wrote:

squid wrote:

Given all the conversation lately about NIL and transfers and coaches, I decided to start doing a monthly donation to FoG: https://fogcollective.com/ - direct link to donate https://bpsfoundation.net/donations/georgewashingtonuniversity/

Are they providing you with anything for the monthly donation?  The website seems pretty bare bones

This is the only reason that's keeping me from donating too - I'm sure they're all figuring it out, but some sort of guidance would be helpful. I know they operate in a different stratosphere, but look at all the resources and information UConn's put together here, for example.

 LOL. UConn has $5 million dollars in NIL money and has won 2 straight national championships - it's not in just a different stratosphere - it's in a different universe. How about we compare apples to apples? Show me what other A-10 teams are doing.

DC Native wrote:

I don't think people should denigrate Mark Few just because one poster on this site is overzealous about him. Before he arrived at Gonzaga, they had appeared in the NCAA Tourney one time, a 1995 loss to Maryland. Under Few, they have been to the NCAA Tourney 25 years in a row, and the Sweet 16 9 years in a row. They have been in 2 national championship games. Yes, they lost both games, but so has every other team from outside the P6 conferences since 1990's great UNLV team. I know because, being a fan of GW and thus the A10, I always root for these teams to beat the P6 competition, which has many purposefully designed advantages over everyone else. Last year it was SD State. For many years before that it was Gonzaga. Before that it was Butler and Memphis. All made it to the final game but unfortunately fell short. Many other teams from "mid major" conferences have made the Final Four, including UMass and St. Joes from the A10, and VCU and Mason before they joined. I know there is a lot of bad blood between some posters on this board, but that is no reason to denigrate a great coach. Maybe he isn't "America's Greatest Coach," but I don't know how anyone can argue that he is not a top 5 coach in men's college basketball today.

I think Mark Few is a great coach and the Gonzaga program is one of the top programs. This is more a result of one poster's consistent and repetitive over the top postings (on the GW board no less) about how he is "America's Greatest Coach" - a title he coined not me.  You can think someone is a very good coach but not "America's Greatest Coach." This poster deserves a tweak every now and then when "America's Greatest Coach" falls short of the standard the poster created. I am quite sure Mark Few himself would be embarrassed by the title.

Tommy Lloyd just like his mentor aka America' s Greatest Coach struggles once again as he reaches the Sweet 16 then loses to 6 seed Clemson as 2 seed. Seems like the coaching apple doesn't fall far from the tree. He's been twice a 2 seed and a 1 seed and can't sniff the Final Four. 

Gwmayhem wrote:

Except that you wouldn't.  If you let 96 schools in, the 97th-100th teams are going to feel ripped off.  Plus, you're still going to whine and whine about P6 schools getting in ahead of mid-majors.  Your .500 or better rule?  Do you really think that's ever going to happen?    Let's see, the NET was created and that allows an even bigger advantage to P6 schools.  The NCAA just changed the NIT so that regular season conference winners (i.e. mid-majors and smaller conference schools) who do not make the Dance no longer receive automatic entry into the NIT, which provides an advantage to P6 schools.  Do you really think that the NCAA is going to adopt a rule that would have prohibited Ohio State from making a 96 team field because it went 9-11 in its conference games this season?

Seriously, what planet are you on?
 

Gwmayhem, unless you like arguing with a wall that repeats itself early and often, you are just going to have to declare victory and move on. He doesn't understand much about the sport and likely never will.

I meant to post this earlier ... I always chuckle at the annual outrage over which teams are selected and which ones are excluded. The NCAA Committee knows what it is doing. And by that, I don't mean that they always get the right 68. What I mean is that they consistently put on a March Madness tournament that thrills and grows interest every year. Other than a few holier than thou nerds and the aggrieved fans of a few schools that believe they were slighted, does anyone really think that anyone watching the end of the Houston-Texas A&M game the other night thought to themselves: "That was a great game but it was diminished by the fact that the Big East was screwed with only three teams." LOL.

The bottom-line is that "no one cares" and if the tournament is entertaining like it always is, the overwhelming number of fans move on the minute the tournament tips. There will always be complaints no matter where you draw the line and you can't make a process completely objective that is by its nature is subjective since all teams don't play each other.

Joel Joseph wrote:

Rising, get real. GW has historically had very little alumni support (in terms of $) in men's basketball (or in any GW sport).
Why should it surprise anybody that after what we have been through in the last 8 years big alumni donors will suddenly start donating the big bucks. NLI is no different.
Let's start getting more than a few hundred people to attend games before using our lack of NLI as an excuse. News Flash: we need to put a better product on the floor before people want to take the time and money to come see us play. This has been the case for years. It takes investment by the university to accomplish this and get a return on their investment (like Dayton and others).
Siena heard the message and bit the bullet with Carm (and the 2 years he had left on his contract) in fear of losing all their season ticket holders  (and their $). GW can't and won't do the same. Is it due to GW's financial situation right now? That's a topic up for debate.

Joel, this is not your father's Oldsmobile. In order to win these days, you need NIL money. At GW, it's hard to get NIL money unless you win. Older experienced teams win these days. But you can't get older and experienced in the transfer portal era unless you can attract older and experienced players with NIL money.. Coaching is now way overrated. It's the Jimmies and the Joes that matter most in mercenary basketball.

BM wrote:

The founder of the Friends of George said they raised in the mid-six digits last year on the call.  That's something.

 It is until you consider that the top 6 Big East teams averaged $2 million in NIL and 3 of those didn't qualify for the NCAA tournament. It is until you realize you have to raise the money every year not just one year.