I think the rules for college athletes and compensation should just be the same as any other student on campus.  Students can work paid internships in college, work at an ice cream stand in the summer, or can become "influencers" and get paid for their Instagram posts.  It doesn't impact their status as students or jeopardize their scholarships and likewise it shouldn't impact an athlete's eligibility.   If athletes want compensation from schools directly, they can organize to do so and maybe some schools will offer it, but like in the case of Graduate Assistants, it will be an uphill battle for them to argue that they are employees in any meaningful legal sense.

As it relates to NIL, I don't know what the rules are for students who are included in campus brochures and other promotional materials.  Are they typically paid for being more or less models for the school?  If so, what's the going rate?  NCAA athletes are pretty much models for the school just in a different medium than print brochures.  Players could try to negotiate outside agreements with video game manufacturers and sue if they feel like their NIL are infringed, but good luck footing that legal bill.  I'm thinking about how Jordan and Bonds famously were not in certain video games.  Once NIL is allowed I don't think the school is under any obligation to negotiate on the individual player's behalf.  

I do think that some of the perversion of the money generated by college athletics has happened because of the non-profit nature of schools and also schools being ok with letting such a large sum of money stay earmarked for specific sports.  I realize I would never be hired as President of Alabama or Ohio State because it would be unconscionable to me that I'd be letting students go into life-crippling debt while at the same time oversee the construction of some new football lounge with a spa and arcade because some donor said I could only use it for that purpose.

Last edited by GW0509 (5/10/2021 11:49 am)

I have a lot to say on this topic. However, before I do, I think it would be most helpful if everyone reviewed the following ...

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/finances-intercollegiate-athletics

danjsport wrote:

Every single school teaches students somewhere on campus that business succeeds when revenue exceeds expenses. If the vast majority of schools are losing money, why do they still keep doing it?

Probably because they view it like a form of marketing, to attract athletes and non-athletes alike to attend their school as opposed to a pure money making enterprise.  However, taking the business metaphor further, businesses will track what sort of ROI they are getting for their marketing dollars and what marketing campaigns work better than others.  I'm sure we'll see in the coming years that there are a few schools that don't think the costs associated with marketing through intercollegiate athletics is worth the expense.

It does seem like they were unprepared AND uninterested, which is the real shame. Feels a lot like an inability by their leadership to synthesize new information and be agile in adjusting plans to new circumstances. 

Never bothered to look,but barring great A 10 NCAA performances,do we make much money,if at all,from our one flagship sport?

I did not invent the phrase that you have to spend money to make money and I suspect we all know there is at least some truth to this.  When you view GW's most successful seasons from an attendance standpoint, you will find that the school did spend real dollars on promoting the program and that by and large, the team was enjoying success on the court.  (There have been occasional outliers where the team drew well but performed somewhat poorly.)  What wasn't made publicly available was the additional expenditure amounts and whether the bump in attendance resulted in a positive return on investment.

What's been said about Hartford has also been true at GW even if for different reasons.  Namely, that the men's basketball program has been unable to capitalize upon its own success.  This ranges from excuses over not being able to attract power conference opponents to the Smith Center, a myth that was exposed by ML's ability, or perhaps willingness, to schedule these types of programs, to higher-ups failing to back Karl Hobbs/Omargate or Mike Lonergan/Nerogate.  What has been clear through the years is that GW's administration does not rise to the occasion once the going gets tough.  It is less risky to not spend money on the program than to spend money on the program.  It is easier to move away from controversy even if this means reversing your position, as in throwing the program under the bus when it was revealed that the Hobbs staff was recruiting NCAA eligible players who attended questionable/fraudulent prep schools, or simply finding a way to rid itself of an alleged "abuser" while tacitly backing the efforts of an alleged "sexual predator" who undoubtedly committed a number of NCAA violations.

On the other hand, let's assume for argument's sake that ours was a controversy-free program.  The cards would still likely be stacked against us.  Only a small percentage of students follow the team while the majority have zero interest.  Our history has us going to 1 Sweet 16, the farthest the school has ever advanced.  The donor pool is limited.  Media exposure is limited.  Games can be seen on tv but very few if any are on ESPN or CBS where a casual fan would be more likely to find a game than on the soon to be defunct NBCSN or CBSSN.  Streaming on ESPN+ requires a payment that anyone outside of a committed fan of the program will bypass.  So yes, even in a perfect world, we are a tough sell.

That all said, the answer is not to abandon sports or hopefully, not become a "have-not."  Success in sports elevates the GW brand and those residual effects show up in application bumps which leads to a stronger academic pool.   

 

That moment you realize that the only names left posting, all saying to each other "you are absolutely right" are one person.

Seems at the very least, if that one person is going to spread daily bile about the school, the program the coaches, the players, and other posters, he'd be limited to one poster name. 

Mayhem/Rising
Mailvan/BlueSeats
MV/BoKnows  - why do you keep changing the 2 names? does anyone believe every new Coach brings with it two new people playing the same trite back and forth? Remember when Herve proved they were the same person? 

and then the negative name, always buttressed by more attack dog fake names like "Joel Joseph" 

hard to imagine anything more cowardly, on a niche anonymous fan site with like 8 quasi regular posters hving to use so many fake anonymous names... cowardly and pointless "JJ"

you've made quite clear on this thread Mayhem that you are also JJ, shocking! who could've guessed that!



 

Last edited by The Dude (5/14/2021 3:27 pm)

On the theory that a broken clock is right twice a day, I agree with Brian Paul on this one.