Transfer Portal 2023

[Big Green]

18 minutes ago, HoopsFan03 said:

Is this a bad thing?

I don't see an issue with this if I'm being honest. 

Yes, its a bad thing.  How do you build a program if you put the time in to develop a player and they leave before you ripe the rewards.

TBH, I would rather UND just drop all sports but hockey than be in that position.

 

[UND-FB-FAN]

1 hour ago, homer said:

Almost….still couldn’t do it without trying to tie it to UND and it’s football staff. 

Because it’s subpar. Embrace reality. 

[The Sicatoka]

9 minutes ago, AJS said:

The Alston award (701 award) works essentially the same as a NIL collective. 

One major difference?
The IRS says NIL collectives are not 501(c)3 charities. 

You may not tax deduct donations to an NIL. 
You may tax deduct donations to the UND AA&F for the 701 Fund. 

[GoodGood]

9 minutes ago, Big Green said:

Yes, its a bad thing.  How do you build a program if you put the time in to develop a player and they leave before you ripe the rewards.

TBH, I would rather UND just drop all sports but hockey than be in that position.

 

Wow

[The Sicatoka]

College sports is on an unsustainable path.

Schools cutting down to what their base supports and can fund, and nothing more, is a real potential outcome of this trajectory. 

[HoopsFan03]

22 minutes ago, Big Green said:

Yes, its a bad thing.  How do you build a program if you put the time in to develop a player and they leave before you ripe the rewards.

TBH, I would rather UND just drop all sports but hockey than be in that position.

 

That's why you have other players on the roster or you utilize the portal and fill in that spot once Texas takes a player. 

If UND gets a player for 2,3,4 years or whatever it may be that is good enough that Texas wants them and is willing to pay big money for them, I would say that is absolutely a win for UND and its fans. It means that we got to watch a great player for a few years. 

At the end of the day, I'm not sure how I could possibly be mad at a kid fulfilling their dreams of playing very high level football and making life changing money at the same time. 

[GoHawks]

30 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

One major difference?
The IRS says NIL collectives are not 501(c)3 charities. 

You may not tax deduct donations to an NIL. 
You may tax deduct donations to the UND AA&F for the 701 Fund. 

So what would it take to start a NIL for football? 

[UND1983]

The only people that think this is great are too young to understand long-term implications cause they haven't seen any.  Sic was right, completely unsustainable long term.  

[ToDaClub]

39 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

One major difference?
The IRS says NIL collectives are not 501(c)3 charities. 

You may not tax deduct donations to an NIL. 
You may tax deduct donations to the UND AA&F for the 701 Fund. 

If a business pays a player to do an appearance or do a commercial for them, is it not deductible for the business as payroll or an advertising expense? 

[UNDBIZ]

5 minutes ago, ToDaClub said:

If a business pays a player to do an appearance or do a commercial for them, is it not deductible for the business as payroll or an advertising expense? 

Yes, it would be deductible for a business.

[UND1983]

The business needs to run it through the collective though?  Or maybe the school actually.  

[HoopsFan03]

3 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

The only people that think this is great are too young to understand long-term implications cause they haven't seen any.  Sic was right, completely unsustainable long term.  

And the same people that are against NIL are old people that are mad money like this wasn't around when they were college aged. The same thing can be said both ways. 

Even if this is "completely unsustainable long term", what is the other option? Make kids play for free again? Tell a kid they aren't allowed to do what is best for them?? That they aren't allowed to be paid what they are worth?? But coaches are allowed to do exactly that?

Yup that makes a whole lot of sense. I just don't understand the argument of a full grown adult being mad that kids are allowed to make money and make decisions that are best for them. 

[UND08]

2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

The business needs to run it through the collective though?

Not sure if athletes are allowed to sign NIL deals outside of a collective.  I'd think they could since the collective isn't organized by the school.  But if the collective is open to all athletes then it may be easier for those non-star players to benefit from NIL by being a part of the collective.

As far as the business I'd assume any marketing services provided by players associated with a collective would be billed by and paid to the collective by the business, and the business would then deduct it as advertising expense.

[UND1983]

6 minutes ago, HoopsFan03 said:

And the same people that are against NIL are old people that are mad money like this wasn't around when they were college aged. The same thing can be said both ways. 

Even if this is "completely unsustainable long term", what is the other option? Make kids play for free again? Tell a kid they aren't allowed to do what is best for them?? That they aren't allowed to be paid what they are worth?? But coaches are allowed to do exactly that?

Yup that makes a whole lot of sense. I just don't understand the argument of a full grown adult being mad that kids are allowed to make money and make decisions that are best for them. 

Relax Lenny.  The point is more schools will be dropping off from this than joining - that is my prediction.  The P5 will be off in their own world and the rest will find they cannot keep up and there is no reason to try. Some sure, many won't.  

[homer]

11 minutes ago, HoopsFan03 said:

And the same people that are against NIL are old people that are mad money like this wasn't around when they were college aged. The same thing can be said both ways. 

Even if this is "completely unsustainable long term", what is the other option? Make kids play for free again? Tell a kid they aren't allowed to do what is best for them?? That they aren't allowed to be paid what they are worth?? But coaches are allowed to do exactly that?

Yup that makes a whole lot of sense. I just don't understand the argument of a full grown adult being mad that kids are allowed to make money and make decisions that are best for them. 

I don’t think anyone is upset with the kids.  I believe the argument against NIL is how sustainable it is year to year, how college sports will be ruined with how this is now tied to recruiting, and the transfer portal being a part of it.  
 

Look past the short term financial benefit  for athletes of some sports and tell me how sustainable college sports are for all student athletes.  

[SD UND]

1 minute ago, homer said:

I don’t think anyone is upset with the kids.  I believe the argument against NIL is how sustainable it is year to year, how college sports will be ruined with how this is now tied to recruiting, and the transfer portal being a part of it.  
 

Look past the short term financial benefit  for athletes of some sports and tell me how sustainable college sports are for all student athletes.  

the biggest issue with NIL is that it is not being used as it was intended to.

 

It's supposed to be that the athletes are able to market themselves- go out and find opportunities to make money themselves. Instead, it has turned into schools putting together collectives and giving money away because Coach X said they need to in order to get them here. 

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...and the NCAA has allowed the tube to be totally squeezed out.

 

[HoopsFan03]

6 minutes ago, homer said:

I don’t think anyone is upset with the kids.  I believe the argument against NIL is how sustainable it is year to year, how college sports will be ruined with how this is now tied to recruiting, and the transfer portal being a part of it.  
 

Look past the short term financial benefit  for athletes of some sports and tell me how sustainable college sports are for all student athletes.  

College sports aren't sustainable for all student athletes no matter if there is NIL/the transfer portal or not. The majority of college sports lose tons of money every year. Unfortunately a lot of those sports will have to be cut by schools. That's unfortunate, but that's just the way business works. And college/college athletics is a business first. 

I really don't think NIL has that much of an impact on the long term sustainability for all student athletes. 

[Kab]

I’m not one that’s going to buy a mattress because a football players says it’s good or a beverage because of that, in fact I might buy something else.

can cheerleaders get in on NIL?

[GoodGood]

I promise you athletes were getting paid long before NIL was a thing. It just now has a name. The kids are benefiting and I love it. 

[UND1983]

3 minutes ago, SD UND said:

the biggest issue with NIL is that it is not being used as it was intended to.

 

It's supposed to be that the athletes are able to market themselves- go out and find opportunities to make money themselves. Instead, it has turned into schools putting together collectives and giving money away because Coach X said they need to in order to get them here. 

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...and the NCAA has allowed the tube to be totally squeezed out.

 

It's their way of allowing the big boys to separate even further, creating a new model is my guess.  Takes care of itself

[UND1983]

What NDSU is doing is trying to raise money to maintain what they have while having zero idea if it will work.  They will never have as much as the schools they are trying to fight against.  They are simply reacting and maintaining.  That is never a successful strategy.  

[petey23]

24 minutes ago, SD UND said:

the biggest issue with NIL is that it is not being used as it was intended to.

 

It's supposed to be that the athletes are able to market themselves- go out and find opportunities to make money themselves. Instead, it has turned into schools putting together collectives and giving money away because Coach X said they need to in order to get them here. 

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...and the NCAA has allowed the tube to be totally squeezed out.

 

And the focus shifted from the NCAA and The Universities should be paying the athletes to now they can just let the Boosters pay the athletes money "legally" instead of duffle bags of cash left in the back of the Range Rover they bought for the athlete's parents on the down low. Win/win for the Universities and NCAA as they can still make a ton of money from their athletic programs and athletes without having to dip into their profits to pay them directly....the potential unintended consequence down the road is the boosters and alumni are now paying athletes which could affect their contributions/donations to the University in general and to the University Athletic programs. The Universities now need more money from State legislatures and are given the finger which leads to fights between Athletic Departments and the Academic Communities at Universities over the raising of and disbursement of "student fees".  We are quite a ways past the "O'Bannon vs. NCAA case.

[shep]

The negative impact for the player is a flooded portal.

Over 1000 have entered it up about 250 from last year.

Too many will never play football next season.

[UND1983]

1 minute ago, shep said:

The negative impact for the player is a flooded portal.

Over 1000 have entered it up about 250 from last year.

Too many will never play football next season.

In life there is only one way to learn a lesson, sometimes.  And boy did I learn!  

[geaux_sioux]

Can we move The Great NIL Debate to a separate thread and keep this one about the players going in and out of the portal and the kids in the portal we offer?