forums

Decline in SEC talent

AtlAtty said:
The SEC schools, for the most part, are not in ideal situations to take advantage of NIL.
The BIG 10 schools like Michigan, Illinois, USC, have not only a large alumni base, but they have a very wealthy alumni base. Not people who own car dealerships and local businesses, but people who are CEO’s of multi-national companies.

The same is true of Miami. The Mas brothers and the Soffer family were never going to give out cash in McDonalds bags. But they can financially support athletics above the table for as long as they care to without even feeling the financial difference.

The SEC is not going away, but expect that league to become a loud voice for NIL regulation/reform/limitations.
Click to expand...


Very relevant post.

I know some people will "object" to what I will say here about the SEC (and "the south", where I've lived since I was 4), but SEC schools and their boosters are "accustomed to" a culture of "low cost labor". The ability to dish out $100K for a player who might be worth $1M on the open market was facilitated by the secret and illicit nature of "under the table" payments.

Thus, if you could give a kid $100K, and his entire eligibility was at risk if he disclosed the payment, then the kid was stuck in golden handcuffs. He couldn't compare bids, he couldn't shop around, out of fear of being reported.

As you correctly point out, there are a lot of boosters who are happy to support athletics as long as it isn't as seamy and problematic as the "under the table" days. And the athletes have more transparency as to what the market rates are. As well as some amount of leverage to redline the more aggressive and oppressive clauses that schools/collectives try to insert into these deals.

We still have some way to go in making progress. NIL/rev-share deals continue to torture the English language with clauses that attempt to limit the rights of players and constrain them with financial penalties for leaving a school. I'm not sure how many failed lawsuits we will need to see before schools realize that collective bargaining and employer-employee relationships are the correct pathway to follow.

The next few years are going to be crazy.
 
Advertisement
skyman said:
Oh SMU coming.. Just the other day they sent out the smoke signal..



Click to expand...


There you go. I knew SMU wouldn't disappoint. They're our natural rivals. Small private college in a big city with strong local recruiting base and large state schools who absolutely hate them out of jealousy.

Recruiting under Lashlee has been better than before they joined the ACC. But they really need to up their game to a whole new level. Money talks.
 
TexasCane90 said:
Yup if one of the huge tech dudes was into football it would be silly…

so far the only “oil money” that’s been loud has been the tech former player turned power booster. I’m really shocked SMU hasn’t killed it more but I’d have to guess their boosters being tied up on actually funding the athletic dept these few years until their full ACC membership status is a drain no matter who you are
Click to expand...
T Boone Pickens gave Millions to Oklahoma St. for years.They went to crap when he passed.
 
brcane1 said:
Top 5/10 Construction company in America.
Click to expand...


When I was at UM, I just knew the company as "Church & Tower".

Years later, I found out the original name was Iglesias & Torres, and Jorge Mas Canosa translated the two names into (singular) English.
 
Advertisement
SpikeUM said:
One minor clarification; historically, the richest individuals in town were the real estate folks and the car dealers. Technology has expanded but not changed that.
Click to expand...
Yeah there are some very wealthy car dealers in every major town/city.

I keep thinking about the used car dealer in Athens and Starkville, MS.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Very relevant post.

I know some people will "object" to what I will say here about the SEC (and "the south", where I've lived since I was 4), but SEC schools and their boosters are "accustomed to" a culture of "low cost labor". The ability to dish out $100K for a player who might be worth $1M on the open market was facilitated by the secret and illicit nature of "under the table" payments.

Thus, if you could give a kid $100K, and his entire eligibility was at risk if he disclosed the payment, then the kid was stuck in golden handcuffs. He couldn't compare bids, he couldn't shop around, out of fear of being reported.

As you correctly point out, there are a lot of boosters who are happy to support athletics as long as it isn't as seamy and problematic as the "under the table" days. And the athletes have more transparency as to what the market rates are. As well as some amount of leverage to redline the more aggressive and oppressive clauses that schools/collectives try to insert into these deals.

We still have some way to go in making progress. NIL/rev-share deals continue to torture the English language with clauses that attempt to limit the rights of players and constrain them with financial penalties for leaving a school. I'm not sure how many failed lawsuits we will need to see before schools realize that collective bargaining and employer-employee relationships are the correct pathway to follow.

The next few years are going to be crazy.
Click to expand...
I apprecaite what you wrote about golden handcuffs. Those boosters knew the kids who took the duffle bags of money had way more to lose if the news got out, than the booster. It’s like the line in Blue Chips when the booster tells the coach Nick Nolte that he “owns” one of his players who took some money to throw a game. That fictional player, of which there are so many, had given away all the leverage to the booster.

Now it’s a legitimate business deal, at least the way UM is doing it. The leverage is much more even as it should be in a legitimate deal. And, as you noted, because the deals are legitimate, the player has the option of going to court to enforce or invalidate the deal. That obviosuly never could have happened in the pre-NIL system.

Yes things are not “perfect”. But they are so, so much better than under the old system that it shocks me that people still complain about NIL but don’t seem to make the comparison to the pre-NIL system.
 
AtlAtty said:
I apprecaite what you wrote about golden handcuffs. Those boosters knew the kids who took the duffle bags of money had way more to lose if the news got out, than the booster. It’s like the line in Blue Chips when the booster tells the coach Nick Nolte that he “owns” one of his players who took some money to throw a game. That fictional player, of which there are so many, had given away all the leverage to the booster.

Now it’s a legitimate business deal, at least the way UM is doing it. The leverage is much more even as it should be in a legitimate deal. And, as you noted, because the deals are legitimate, the player has the option of going to court to enforce or invalidate the deal. That obviosuly never could have happened in the pre-NIL system.

Yes things are not “perfect”. But they are so, so much better than under the old system that it shocks me that people still complain about NIL but don’t seem to make the comparison to the pre-NIL system.
Click to expand...

The two systems are extremes, one way was in favor of schools and the other way in favor of athletes, we need to end up somewhere in the middle.
 
Back
Top