• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official 2022-23 College Basketball Thread: UCONN - One Shining Moment

NJDeac’22 said:
It is though lol. Direct payments from boosters to players are illegal, so they launder the money through an unaffiliated organization. That's the purpose of collectives. There is no discernible product or business other than the small commission they take in exchange for passing money from booster to player.
Click to expand...
Are you acting in a decision-making capacity for RTQ? If not, you have no idea how they are directing their funds. Money-laundering is the the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money through a series of financial transfers, which has nothing to do with how RTQ is collecting funds and then spending those funds, unless you are accusing Ben Sutton, Mit Shah, David Couch of running a fentanyl distribution operation or a sex-ring and then funneling the proceeds from illegal operations through RTQ. Just a wrong and libelous statement on every level. Please don't be so stupid.
 
Pilchard said:
Are you acting in a decision-making capacity for RTQ? If not, you have no idea how they are directing their funds. Money-laundering is the the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money through a series of financial transfers, which has nothing to do with how RTQ is collecting funds and then spending those funds, unless you are accusing Ben Sutton, Mit Shah, David Couch of running a fentanyl distribution operation or a sex-ring and then funneling the proceeds from illegal operations through RTQ. Just a wrong and libelous statement on every level. Please don't be so stupid.
Click to expand...
Ok. Maybe it doesn't fit the legal definition of money laundering, but the purpose of collectives is hiding an illegal payment through a third-party intermediary. RTQ and other collectives are the third party entities acting as intermediaries to hide otherwise illegal payments between boosters and top athletes in two of over 30 college sports.

Still no response to my point that NIL hurts the majority of athletes and that it worries me that even the most "pro-player" stakeholders don't actually care for the majority of our athletes.
 
How are you so sure RTQ is only involved in certain sports?

Take a break man. You shouldn't be sweating at the keyboard.
 
Football and to a lesser extent, men's basketball, has been funding all other sports forever. Still is the case.

Through NIL, athletes are getting paid what the market bears for them. There are twin girls on the Miami hoops team that are millionaires because of NIL. Why do you think ACC freshman of the year in baseball transferred to LSU? There are D3 athletes that are getting NIL money in multiple sports. Of course football gets the most NIL money, that's sport draws the biggest fan support and interest.

For those that want women's soccer or cross country to get better funding, make a donation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA cannot prevent college athletes from getting NIL deals. If individual donors (or collective donors) want their money going to a particular program or a particular athlete that is their prerogative. If I have $100K burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to spend it on keeping Michael Jurgens at WF, rather than spreading it around to the field hockey program, that's the way it should work.

D3 schools find a way to fund far more programs than WF does, and they don't have really any revenue streams. Not worried that college soccer or college volleyball is going to disappear. You really need to stop with the sky is falling drivel. So tired.
 
NJDeac’22 said:
Ok. Maybe it doesn't fit the legal definition of money laundering, but the purpose of collectives is hiding an illegal payment through a third-party intermediary. RTQ and other collectives are the third party entities acting as intermediaries to hide otherwise illegal payments between boosters and top athletes in two of over 30 college sports.

Still no response to my point that NIL hurts the majority of athletes and that it worries me that even the most "pro-player" stakeholders don't actually care for the majority of our athletes.
Click to expand...
There is 0.0% actual financial evidence that NIL is hurting other sports. If the UNC AD truly believed that, he wouldn't have publicly come out in support of multiple UNC related NIL collectives, including one that is solely for football players and one that's only for men's basketball.

If he was truly concerned and it was actually an issue then there would actually be public receipts of it, especially given it's a public university and they can't hide behind a veil that say Wake could. Are there legit concerns with it? Absolutely. It harming the majority of athletes is utterly false and nothing but fearmongering.
 
Pat Kelsey got a segment on ESPNU this afternoon. Some good words from tje hosts about the job he's done. He talked about how he mines the portal at multiple levels for good players. Also, he is a big Bengals fan.
 
Yeah Lsu sucks. It took a ridiculous performance from their best player hitting everything he looked at to win at the buzzer against us. Not great but it is what it is
 
CamLemons said:
There is 0.0% actual financial evidence that NIL is hurting other sports. If the UNC AD truly believed that, he wouldn't have publicly come out in support of multiple UNC related NIL collectives, including one that is solely for football players and one that's only for men's basketball.

If he was truly concerned and it was actually an issue then there would actually be public receipts of it, especially given it's a public university and they can't hide behind a veil that say Wake could. Are there legit concerns with it? Absolutely. It harming the majority of athletes is utterly false and nothing but fearmongering.
Click to expand...
On the 247 board, posters were saying they hoped our donors' money didn't go to facility upgrades and instead went to a certain talented 17 year old basketball recruit to induce him to commit to Wake. If that theoretically became a reality, that is exactly how it would negatively impact other athletes. Now, do I have any evidence that an individual donor that would have donated money to the athletic department now won't and will give it to a recruit instead? No, that is an impossible thing to prove, but I think it's a very fair concern particularly when you get outside of the context of Wake and look at true football powers. UF pushing for $13M from donors to pay a high schooler presumably means they are no longer seeing money from those donors to fund the department as a whole. That is the concern I have. A football player making money based on the use of his N, I, and L would have no impact on another athlete, but when it's from donors to player as an inducement or payment, it decreases the funding for other athletes.

Now, for the sake of what I find to be a crucial discussion, Cam (or others) do you believe the women's national team was justified in suing for equal pay, because "equal work = equal pay"? If so, every dollar of the $300k initial payment plus potential add-ins that I'm told our guy Sam Hartman received from Notre Dame should also go to their slowest 400m runner, because as a fellow ND athlete, he is doing equal work to Sam, regardless of the vastly different amounts of money they lose or bring in. I think this angle is one of the few that could actually lead to a curtailing of this runaway train, as a liberal court would see right through the bs that a collective is a company sponsorship and not an indirect salary and would immediately order equal pay for male and female athletes. Surely this would lead to donations returning to programs and not recruits or players, whether that is better or worse. If I was the NCAA and my goal was protecting non-football athletes, that would be the angle I use. I would also create a national NCAA office to assist athletes in finding honest sponsorship opportunities!
 
I also don't think retweeting random guys from random CFB twitter pages trying to dispute an NYTimes reporter makes the NYTimes reporter wrong lol.

Not to fall into the LeBron meme template, but years back before people widely discussed allowing players to profit off of their N, I, and L and were just arguing about direct payments, I argued for an amateur system that allows for players to do whatever the hell they want sponsorship wise or services wise as long as it is not affiliated in any way with a team or as an encouragement to join a team, because that's how Ireland's national sports work, and it works out fantastically over there. The parallels of that and college football are plenty and I always didn't understand our players not being able to make money off of their own brand. I am a 100% huge fan of the NCAA not only allowing, but hopefully HELPING players to make as much as they want to through the use of their N, I, and L. I just find this booster -> shell company -> player arrangement to be separate from that and damaging to almost everybody that isn't a major football or basketball recruit. I understand criticizing RTQ is a no-no especially since according to friends they emailed Wake beat writers asking them to advocate for RTQ, but in the wider sense I find collectives to be quite damaging and complete BS.
 
NJDeac’22 said:
On the 247 board, posters were saying they hoped our donors' money didn't go to facility upgrades and instead went to a certain talented 17 year old basketball recruit to induce him to commit to Wake. If that theoretically became a reality, that is exactly how it would negatively impact other athletes. Now, do I have any evidence that an individual donor that would have donated money to the athletic department now won't and will give it to a recruit instead? No, that is an impossible thing to prove, but I think it's a very fair concern particularly when you get outside of the context of Wake and look at true football powers. UF pushing for $13M from donors to pay a high schooler presumably means they are no longer seeing money from those donors to fund the department as a whole. That is the concern I have. A football player making money based on the use of his N, I, and L would have no impact on another athlete, but when it's from donors to player as an inducement or payment, it decreases the funding for other athletes.

Now, for the sake of what I find to be a crucial discussion, Cam (or others) do you believe the women's national team was justified in suing for equal pay, because "equal work = equal pay"? If so, every dollar of the $300k initial payment plus potential add-ins that I'm told our guy Sam Hartman received from Notre Dame should also go to their slowest 400m runner, because as a fellow ND athlete, he is doing equal work to Sam, regardless of the vastly different amounts of money they lose or bring in. I think this angle is one of the few that could actually lead to a curtailing of this runaway train, as a liberal court would see right through the bs that a collective is a company sponsorship and not an indirect salary and would immediately order equal pay for male and female athletes. Surely this would lead to donations returning to programs and not recruits or players, whether that is better or worse. If I was the NCAA and my goal was protecting non-football athletes, that would be the angle I use. I would also create a national NCAA office to assist athletes in finding honest sponsorship opportunities!
Click to expand...
It is only an issue of the money when it goes to the player(s). Same thing at Florida, the $13M to Rashada was a very large number and is still less than what they're paying Napier and his support staff. They're spending $85 Million dollars on facilities (which feels impossible). It is again only an issue when the money is flowing to the players no one bats an eye.

I have zero opinion on the USWNT because I've looked into that zero nor have I spoken to people that report on that so I'm not going to give an opinion on that. The people who actually cover the space(people you refer to as random CFB) don't really see there being a legal avenue yet because there's nothing to litigate because they aren't recognized as employees. Until that happens, things will be as they are(and outside of the dollar figures they are operating just as they were before)
 
CamLemons said:
It is only an issue of the money when it goes to the player(s). Same thing at Florida, the $13M to Rashada was a very large number and is still less than what they're paying Napier and his support staff. They're spending $85 Million dollars on facilities (which feels impossible). It is again only an issue when the money is flowing to the players no one bats an eye.

I have zero opinion on the USWNT because I've looked into that zero nor have I spoken to people that report on that so I'm not going to give an opinion on that. The people who actually cover the space(people you refer to as random CFB) don't really see there being a legal avenue yet because there's nothing to litigate because they aren't recognized as employees. Until that happens, things will be as they are(and outside of the dollar figures they are operating just as they were before)
Click to expand...
You're acting like the money that pays for facility upgrades and coaching doesn't benefit the players. Players always say their goal in looking for a college program is developing for the NFL, and those investments help them in that quest.

If Wake decided to hire crappy professors and stop mowing the quad so they could lower tuition for the students, they certainly could, but it would be worse for the students. Investing in strength staff, coaching, facilities, etc. is all a HUGE value to players, just as a top-notch finance professor and completely overdone and pricey Farrell Hall was a huge value to me. Mr. Farrell could have just given a few hundred million directly to the B school students (or done it through a mysterious third party called "Study In ZSR", but no he created value for us instead.
 
Nc St was “supposed” to win by 13… only by 3.
Smith scored 17 points while shooting 2-14.
 
deacdixieboy said:
I have no idea what NJ’Deac is even posting because I don’t have the patience to read multiple books back to back to back.
Click to expand...
Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top