Why isn't anyone talking about Miami (YTM) booster buying their hoops teams?
Before this tourney began, I told my son, this is going to be the least-chalky tourney ever. I saw "Uncle Seth" on ESPN say this is probably a one-year aberration, but I totally disagree. We are in the new world of NIL + transfer portal. KSU's team was entirely rebuilt with xfers. SDSU has key ones. Etc. The #1 ranking was a hot potato all year; the difference between a 3 seed and a 9 seed was as small as ever; etc.
And maybe the best proof of that are the Miami Hurricanes -- both men's and women's. Make no mistake, they are the Texas A&M of college basketball. They have a billionaire booster, John Ruiz, who has been paying huge sums to players on both teams to get them to xfer to Miami. Supposedly doing marketing for his company you've never heard of (LifeWallet) and would never use based on ads with Miami hoops players.
This might not be the future of "college" sports, but, it's what we hath wrought for the present.
There are definitely news articles about this, but I hear zero mention of this from the talking heads on TV about Miami's resurgence. Should we be bothered? I am all for capitalism. But whereas pro teams are on level playing fields, it's the Wild Wild West in the NCAA, and I'm not sure this is exactly what I consider capitalism. (Not dissimilar is how European soccer is getting distorted by the oil money.)
March 27th, 2023 at 10:32 AM ^
Because this is now acceptable.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:38 AM ^
And the transfers have been playing all year, so the teams should be ranked accordingly... they didn't buy players just for March.
Might be worth analyzing in the future though, if team's with less experience at their current school (freshmen and transfers) perform better later in the year.
It should be possible to hire players from the losing team as mercenaries for the rest of the tournament.
Miami was 40th in Ken Pom before the tournament. The final four were all in the top 25: 10 (UConn) 16 (Miami) 18 (SDSU) 25 (FAU).
Really not clear to me if something is messed up or if it's just high variance game to game for teenagers playing for a national audience.
And they really didn't buy all of their players. Wong was on the team last year, he just got a huge NIL deal to stay.
It's a lazy take. Especially when you consider Michigan just shelled out for Corum, Zinter, Keegan and Co to come back.
Nigel Pack (sp?) is their NIL transfer. It's not a team full of NIL guys.
Also, they were literally in the Elite 8 last year and they returned a bunch of guys.
The OP acts like they were a 4 win team who bought an all-star team. Again, it's a lazy take.
Exactly, not only do I not see anything wrong with this, it's exactly what the system was meant to do. Capitalism working well.
Players are getting paid closer to their value / what they're worth. It's great.
And this LifeWallet company that no one ever heard of until now (but is obviously being talked about extensively including in this ESPN piece) is buying market exposure above the table like any advertiser does and is probably also winning here.
People are talking about it, but it's not really negative because, this is how it works now. And you either have to put up or shut up.
Players are getting paid closer to their value / what they're worth.
I’m wondering how exactly you determine their basketball worth to be able to make such a statement.
How exactly do you determine any employee's worth to be able to accurately make that statment? This is insanly vague in almost all companies, salary and value are rarely constant or similar.
It's called the market. The market has clearly always wanted to pay players. Now it's able to pay them.
Their value is what someone is willing to pay.
March 28th, 2023 at 10:36 AM ^
Many variables/factors, including futures.
Even without seeing the books, I'd estimate that Miami's Final Four run is starting to pay off.
You are wrong on so many levels here.
I don't even know where to start.
How about with "First off, buying your roster isn't legal".
Are you kidding? Of course it's legal. LifeWallet can now sponsor players. Totally legal. We could do the same.
Being a spokesman for a company that may or may not exist is marginal.
Paying someone to come play basketball for your school is flat out illegal.
Many things in this country that are "acceptable" as you say (meaning "legal") are not necessarily "right".
One of the defining characteristics of college sports - and what distinguished it from the professional leagues - was that it wasn't pay-to-play and teams could not simply buy talent.
It is what it has become, with little left in the way of force or incentive to reverse it. Some may cheer for it, but I lost my interest in seeing people playing for a paycheck long ago... and might just tune out of this as well if things progress as they have been. Oh well.
I find this line of thinking so weird. "If 18-21 year olds can't be forced to receive below market wages in service of the university I love then I am no longer interested!" And then trying to argue that forced underpayment is somehow "right" ethically? No empathy at all for these kids who have a very limited amount of time to monetize their unique abilities wanting to get paid their worth? Heaven forbid these guys who risk their long term physical well bring for your entertainment want to make some real money while doing it. Why don't you just go watch HS or intramural sports or something if you're so wedded to seeing people who aren't playing for paychecks?
The line of thinking is absolutely sound when one considers this not as a "job market" but as a school activity - and not expressly for the purpose of entertainment. Look how college football began (not to mention every other college sport, and how the overwhelming majority of those sports are still performed) - it was never meant nor intended to be a paid form of public entertainment (which is why the professional leagues were formed).
Well played! Logged in to up vote.
Dont want to create a new thread for this, but its kinda related to this topic.
Someone tell Juwan to go checkout TJ Bamba out of the portal, he just declared for daft/entered the portal.
He is not daft worthy, so clear he is using that to just get portal offers to a serious program....he is a very good guard and it the type of kid that wants the ball in crunch time, and he is good at it. Good young man, smart, driven, makes plays for himself and teammates, and loves the game.
It hurts my heart he is leaving the Cougs, but I get it, its a stepping stone program now with the portal.....now I just want him on Michigan, and you guys will love him.
JUWAN OR ANYONE READ THIS!!!
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4596365/tj-bamba
Lock down defender too
March 27th, 2023 at 10:32 AM ^
Everyone loves capitalism until they're not on the winning side of capitalism.
If these players are being paid by a booster to play basketball, it does not matter what they are paid, by definition it is what the market says they are worth and is capitalism.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
I actually think it is possible to be on the losing side of capitalism and still love it. But I agree with the rest of your post.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:47 AM ^
I guess I don’t really view this as capitalism gone awry. This is something else. It is not capitalism when an alumnus of a school offers millions of dollars (often inefficiently) to players so that his former school can attain athletic glory. He’s not doing this for profit maximization. His doing this for more intangible purposes.
I don’t know a better solution to the current landscape of college athletics, but the current winners and losers often seem to be arbitrary (and capricious).
At least now, teams may be able to win by coincidence (having the wealthiest donors willing to spend on sports), rather than just by being the best cheaters. So marginally better then (it also empowers the athletes far more, which is maybe more than marginally better).
I will root for the teams organically built, that win because of good coaching and fundamentals. Right up until the point where we bring in 4 transfers of our own, and do the exact same thing as Miami and KSU have done. ;)
March 27th, 2023 at 10:52 AM ^
The purposes, tangible or not, is not something different than capitalism gone awry, or even different than capitalism. It is capitalism. I guess it is up to the "losers" to determine what it means to them. It does not look like this is going to be Michigan's approach to NIL and eventually all of us will have to decide what that means for our fandom. Right now football is rolling to such a degree with recent success that our conservative approach to NIL is not causing much discomfort but those days are probably coming.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:08 AM ^
March 27th, 2023 at 11:13 AM ^
Social status motivations are not part of the capitalism calculus? That is a different capitalism than I know. I mean if you are talking about the "US financial system," yes, this operates outside of it to a certain degree but that does not fundamentally change the transaction between the parties or its impact on the other people who care about it.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:27 AM ^
You seem to be slicing certain kinds of value out of capitalism—such as value of association, value of influence—as long as those values don’t directly contribute to profit.
That takes us into some philosophical weeds, and my main reactions are two:
1) even if capitalism were *absolutely* restricted to profit motives, one would still have an outrageously difficult time making promises that some relationship has truly zero *indirect* profit effect
2) just because capitalism is more *specifically* related to free dynamics of profit than other economic systems, this does not mean that capitalism can’t also interact with the other motives of life in a manner as *general* as all economic systems do. And in the world of people, association/power/influence are routinely valued and traded in. And though that isn’t purely capitalistic, it also isn’t purely separable from capitalist interests, either.
My take: what’s happening here is “bartering in power and influence.” And bartering in power and influence is a factor embedded into all economic systems, capitalism included. Which means it has a market and, sometimes, that market is free.
So, I agree that it is fair to call all NIL income a measure (direct or indirect) of a player’s market value.
The freedom to sell one's own services to a buyer is absolutely capitalism. 100 percent. The seller is entitled to offer his or her own services and not the government. Ding, ding, ding. Absolutely text book capitalism.
Those who are profiting are the sellers. The players are profiting. Buyers don't need to profit for it to be capitalism. That doesn't even make sense. When I buy groceries, it's not to profit.
Economic systems are defined largely by who owns the means of production.
Patronage systems are capitalist if the providers own the rights to their own services. Very simple.
That said, is NIL intended to be used by businesses for advertising that could economically benefit them? I dunno, that's a legal question.
But the reason for services being purchased has no impact on whether the system is capitalist or not.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:22 AM ^
These guys who have billions to throw around achieved their wealth via capitalist mechanisms, certainly.
But the NCAA's NIL activity is not capitalism. Thia is more similar to imperial colonialism. A single hugely wealthy emperor, with wealth origin irrelevant to the topic, is trying to spend a bit of their fortune to drop into some thing they're interested in and take it over.
There's no market efficiency at work, no invisible hand, no financial benefit to the emperor clearly imminent. They just want to take something over and are willing to spend to try it.
What do you mean there's no market efficiency? Of course there is. There are many sellers offering services and the buyer can buy any of them and ends up paying a market clearing price to one of many sellers. If they price was too high from one seller, the buyer could go to another. Very efficient (moreso than most markets probably).
Why do people think the motive of the buyers has anything to do with capitalism? Capitalism is about who owns the means of production and when the players own the rights to profit off their own production, that is capitalism. And they are benefitting. Every wins! What is so hard about this?
March 27th, 2023 at 11:01 AM ^
"....but the current winners and losers often seem to be arbitrary (and capricious)."
Sure sounds like capitalism to me.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:38 AM ^
Yes. Capitalism is more basic than profit maximization. I mean, even Communist countries in the old Warsaw Pact had some attempt at a kind of profit maximization. They just weren't any good at it.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:17 AM ^
The billionaire is a consumer. He is buying winning basketball. It isn't an investment.
College sports are supposed to be about fair collegial athletic competitions. Buying teams doesn't help that, but at least now it is out in the open so that you can begin to put some rules around it.
Capitalism is great if you have lots of capital.
"fair"....I'm not sure what you mean by that.
They all play the same game by the same rules. If you're referring to how the acquire players, this is more fair than it's ever been. Any team could do this. Just because some don't, doesn't make it unfair. They all have the same opportunity to do this. Hence it is fair.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:23 AM ^
Him paying for players bc he wants to do that with his money is no different than people spending $20k on a pair of Jordans. The motivation doesn't matter. If that's what somebody paid, that's what they're worth. We're just salty we don't have a guy to do that for us. Ruiz is getting what he wanted, the players are getting what they wanted. Good for them.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:35 AM ^
"Ruiz is getting what he wanted, the players are getting what they wanted. Good for them."
Spot fucking on. I love posts like this where the OP renders garments and knashes their teeth over some percieved injustice in the system. Who exactly is the victim in the new NIL world order anyways?
Duke? The team that bought and paid for EVERYONE but now that everyone can do it their competitive advantage goes away.
North Carolina? The diploma factory who basically created an entire academic ecosystem to support their basketball team's grades.
Personally I think it's just fine that the nouveau riche team in Miami made it this far. Maybe other schools who've been on the outside looking in for decades will make a similar investment next year too.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:40 PM ^
You are spot on as well. Well said.
The media hates change. They want to be able to write the same pre-season prediction articles every year. Now they have to think about schools like FAU and SDSU which makes it harder for them.
The only problem I have is that one of the big NIL arguments is that it was going to “even the playing field”. Just because any university can buy talent doesn’t mean they have the ability to do that. And even if they do, are they going to just throw their academic standards in the toilet too? If that’s the idea, college bball and football should just go away because there’s no point to keep up the charade that academics are necessary. NIL has done nothing to level the playing field other than playing spoiler to some of the schools that you mentioned. The amateurism and idea of the college athlete is becoming an illusion. We are getting close to the time where we might need to acknowledge it.
Don't confuse "making the playing field more even" with "an even playing field," I mean wouldnt the fact that no 1-3 seeds are in the final 4 and you have 3 first time participants point to the fact that the playing field is more even?
Same with college football. I don't think anyone was ever arguing that one day Akron would be competing for championships, it was just hopefully now Alabama won't win 6 titles in a decade.
Did anyone make that argument? If so, that's an absurd argument and is irrelevant. NIL was and is about letting the players profit from their efforts. That now happens.
The field wasn't level before anyway. Why do you think the same teams won? It's certainly no less level now. Everyone has an opportunity to do this. So, it probably is more level (and perhaps why you're seeing zero 1-3 seeds in the final four and why Duke, Kansas, UNC and Kentucky didn't make the s16 for like the fourth time ever). Regardless, that shouldn't have been a motivation for allowing NIL.
Plus its really not all that fundamentally different from the past 20+ years except instead of these billionaires donating money to the Athletic Department to indirectly benefit the players (steak dinners, waterslides in the clubhouse, TVs in the stalls), the players now get to keep the money
March 27th, 2023 at 11:39 AM ^
I'd be fine if we brought in 4 good transfers and win it all.
It is able to be fixed it just is going to take time. Contracts are the only thing that will fix it. All money from boosters will have to be officially funneled through the university. They can spend whatever they want on whatever player they want but the school will get the rights to your college eligibility. Of course there can be clauses that specify transferring(leaving a job early), how much you have to pay back, etc. this will really determine a players actual market value. Right now the value is inflated and inaccurate due to rich alumni wanting to win and money being no object. A salary cap of some sort will eventually be needed.
I'm confused by all the Miami and KSU hate because we're already bringing in a few transfers per year. Just because they got a couple more?
Also, KSU had their best player taken by Miami after last year. So you win some and lose some and it's hard to hate on them from rebuilding through transfer when they are losing guys to the same.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:11 AM ^
I don't think that you have this quite right. It's the logic of capitalism coming to hold sway over an area that was formerly regulated to protect amateur sport. That the sport was leaking in many places, that it's a gradual process, and was full of contradiction and hypocrisy doesn't automatically make the new, complex moves, right. It's hardly an either/or, black/white set of issues. Pretty obviously, this domain will be subject to further regulation--as Congress and various state legislatures are making noises, sometimes moving, to do.
The critical piece of NIL, though, is that this isn't "paying the players;" we're confusing paying the players with some players getting paid. It's the schools who make billions off of the players, and who should pay them. So far, they have only evaded that responsibility. A quite handy evasion that shouldn't last too much longer. When that point comes we can talk about what is fair, about what a minimum standard is, etc. And what kind of representation the players will have.
Many of these arguments have completely missed the forest for the trees.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
It's the schools who make billions off of the players,
Schools like Michigan are the exception. The vast majority of NCAA schools do not profit from sports and their athletic departments need to be subsidized from their school's general fund. (They may intangibly benefit, in the sense of receiving increased applications and donations, but not so on their balance sheet.) If you make these schools pay salaries to athletes, you probably will see lots of varsity sports programs cancelled.
NIL is probably the closest thing to a win-win we can get: allowing the players legal compensation while still allowing schools to offer lots of athletic opportunities. If it skews the playing field, well, that field was never really level to begin with.
Right, and you will have contradictions and disparities between schools whether you like it or not. But I would start with paying football and basketball players--from the revenue sports--some kind of minimum, possibly based on league revenues. Improving insurance, etc. Guaranteeing all of them lifelong access to classes and graduation, which I understand is hit and miss. And I'm not saying that I would outlaw NIL--I don't think you can or should. But the obsession with it is telling; it's a distraction from deeper issues.
You're confusing "the schools who make billions off of the players" with "some schools make enough money to employ too many admins in their athletic depts and build large stadiums and subsidize a bunch of a non-revenue sports, etc." And there aren't many of those.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:55 AM ^
If these players are being paid by a booster to play basketball, it does not matter what they are paid, by definition it is what the market says they are worth and is capitalism.
The problem with this logic is that if a single bidder is sufficient to determine value/worth, it can lead to massive swings in value depending on whether that one bidder is still a bidder, or now the owner. Take Mel Tucker. MSU gave him a 10 year, $95M contract, so by this logic he was worth $9.5M per year because that was what the market (i.e. MSU) paid. But he pretty clearly isn't worth $9.5M/year. Beyond even the subjective element (just look at what he's done), my guess is the next highest offer he would have gotten would be ~$5M/year, and even MSU wouldn't give him anywhere near that $95M if they could do it over again. I just don't find it very helpful to say well he was paid $95M so the market says he's worth $95M, given that literally no one else would have valued him even close to that, and there's no way he would sniff that number ever again.
Or take a $300k house. You pay $500k for it, so by that logic, it's now worth $500k. But everyone else values it at $300k, and despite you paying $500k for it, if you try to sell it, the offers are going to be $300k. I.e. if market value can be determined by a single bidder who vastly overpays, the value instantly drops as soon as that bidder buys it, because no one else would pay that much.
Or take a limited, but not unique, collectable. A rare coin, or baseball card, or whatever, where there aren't many out there, but there are more than one. Imagine that there's a collector that really wants one, so he vastly overpays for one. Say he pays $100k. Again, by the logic, that item is now worth $100k. Now say you have one too, same condition/grade (i.e. yours should also be worth $100k), but the collector didn't buy yours, he bought someone else's. It's pretty meaningless to say yours is worth $100k, because someone paid that for one in an identical condition, if no one else out there is going to pay more than $50k.
Like I said, I don't find that helpful. I don't find it helpful to say something is worth a value that it could never actually fetch. I feel like market value is better determined by consensus--what is the market more broadly willing to pay, not what is some crazy outlier willing to pay (if you're ever able to find him)...
Yeah but the point is that when MSU decides to pay Mel $95M or you overpay on a house, there isn't some high council of authority that comes in and says "no wait a minute, you're overpaying you can't do that, it could mess up the delicate balance of values we have decided is correct!"
For some reason that external judge of what is the "correct" amount to pay only comes into play when we are talking NCAA athletes.
Market value has never been determined by consensus. Just because it seems illogical to you, doesn't mean a single buyer doesn't set the market price. I mean isn't that what an auction is?