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.)
These are two different points. I didn't say anything one way or the other about the NCAA or the concept of amateurism.
For some reason that external judge of what is the "correct" amount to pay only comes into play when we are talking NCAA athletes.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you suggest the NCAA has dictated the correct amount that athletes can be paid or otherwise compensated (more on that distinction in a minute). They've put restrictions on the types of payment, i.e. formerly it could only be scholarships and some ancillary benefits, and with NIL it can't come directly from the school, etc. But they haven't really capped any amounts beyond the small CoL stipend.
I don't think it's crazy to take the position (before the explosion of NIL) that college sports should be limited to amateur, student athletes, and if players wanted to be paid, they should go become professionals. Other than maybe some lobbying with respect to minimum age requirements for the various drafts, it's not the NCAAs fault that most sports don't have a viable minor league alternative to college sports. Now the problem is that the NCAA has been plagued by uneven enforcement, and for decades let teams get away with under the table payments while sticking to the amateurism line. But that's a different issue. I also personally think that most people in the "pay the players" camp greatly overestimate the actual value attributed to the players, and greatly underestimate the actual value attributed to the schools. But these are discussions for a different day.
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?
My post was strictly on the economics of "market value," and I disagree with this line of thinking. I would argue that market value has always been determined by some semblance of a consensus. Yes, there's no council or something determining value. But when you have one or a couple outliers way above what everyone else would be willing to pay, I would argue that the market value is going to be more in line than the masses than the outliers. First, like I said, I don't find any usefulness in a definition of market value that would see that value crash as soon as the outlier buys it because he was the only one willing to pay that high. What good is a definition of market value that has no bearing on what you'd actually be able to sell something for? Second, if the market value was truly tied to outlier buyers, there would never be such thing as a bad investment. Value would just go up and up, never down, for all eternity. Because how could value ever go down if it's tied to what someone paid?
Plus, while yes, sometimes individual buys can raise the consensus market price, oftentimes that isn't the case, and the masses point and laugh at them Simpsons style (like MSU paying Tucker $95M, or Musk buying Twitter for $44B, etc.). At the end of the day, if the consensus agrees with what you paid, the market value stays high, and if not, it goes back to what the consensus said originally, which has been my point from the beginning.
Somehow all this discussion is reminding me of the mortgage company that went bust in the Beanie Baby bubble--one of the officers was using his signing authority to buy them, in large quantities, with company funds.
I can't remember the name and can't find anything about it on line. I probably won't be able to remember LifeWallet in thirty years, either.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:04 PM ^
Yes it must be awful for the people not on the “winning side” sitting in a climate controlled dwelling likely watching HD tv with internet access and a smartphone. Such an awful life for them. Capitalism and the pursuit of profit definitely has not accelerated innovation vastly improving countless lives.
LOL. At best, capitalism is break-even for improving vs destroying lives.
You realize there are people who do not have AC/heat and who do not have internet access right? And some of those people are in America, so what are you saying to them?
Truly an irrelevant and bizarre comment.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:39 PM ^
Correct there are some people, but nearly everyone does and of those that do not nearly all of them have mental health issues. I personally know someone who lives solely off of government assistance and has a tv, smart phone and an apartment. They may not have the choice to live in the neighborhood they want or drive the car they want but relative to human history and other countries they live well. All of their healthcare is covered because of their low income. They are able to live an easy life because of the innovations that capitalism fostered. I understand that is not pure capitalism, which at this point I do not think is truly feasible given the social fabric has eroded and people do not have groups to help them in tough times like they used to.
If there is someone in America living without heat/ac and the internet who want it and who do not have a disability (including mental health) I have nothing to tell them because there is literally no excuse.
Why is it truly bizarre? Someone commented bashing capitalism so I just provided another perspective that even the bad side of capitalism is not that bad. I never really had a feeling on it one way or another, but hearing the perspective of a friend I met in college who grew up in Venezuela changed my perspective. Forgive me for getting irritated that someone on a message board, that is a place that is not supposed to involve politics and is where I go to not read the shit, is implying how bad America is because college kids are making money that can have a profound impact on their life. I have another friend who grew up in an orphanage in Brazil where they literally had one pair of shorts and the kids farmed to sustain themselves the best they could. There are flaws in anything but it really is irritating listening to people whine on here about capitalism with undertones of it being an American problem because they can’t buy 20 cars and 10 houses like the booster for Miami can.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:35 AM ^
This was always going to be the outcome of paying players. There were two choices, proceed along a path that had become outright exploitation of labor or find some avenue independent of University funds to compensate players. There really was no choice.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:14 PM ^
I don't get this. We're already seeing dozens of choices, and Congress, state legislators, influential experts offering them. There could be a player minimum wage for revenue sports and maintenance of a revised amateur standard for other sports, for example. TINA is dumb, and almost never true, a way to shut down conversation.
"There could be a player minimum wage for revenue sports and maintenance of a revised amateur standard for other sports"
Title IX is a thing.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
Before the tournament I told my son that Miami, UConn, FAU and SDSU would be in the final four. Didn't fill out a bracket cuz I got better things to do.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:46 AM ^
Same! Next week I will reveal who I had in the final and as champion. Too busy to share right now.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:58 AM ^
The only possible perfect bracket would be a chick filling it out, or someone who had an auto-generating app that randomly picked teams. I think i was wiped out after the first 4 games were played!
March 27th, 2023 at 12:10 PM ^
Yeah them chicks- not a thought in their heads and they wanna watch the sportsball now???
My ol lady ever brings home a bracket I’ll take her right over my knee!
March 27th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
it will be the wild west, for an other year or two... then the ncaa will find ways to structure general guidelines which will eveolve in to more uniform rules and it will eventually get back to the way it was. (only within the rules this time) big organizations will be able to use their influence to put them at a large advantage over smaller ones.
such is the way it goes
March 27th, 2023 at 10:39 AM ^
I am really intrigued in your optimism that the NCAA will put a structure in place in 1-2 years that will effectively direct it back to the way it was, only within the rules now.
I do not ascribe anywhere near that level of competence to the NCAA.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:48 AM ^
If you take the 10,000 foot view, NIL is means of delaying the inevitable. Semi-pro and developmental leagues are going to swallow college sports at some point. I think long term, there are two outcomes. Half empty stadiums watching guys that are not going pro, or rolling college sports into the actual developmental leagues themselves. A college football-USFL hybrid type situation with a full Big House cheering a "farm-system" of high level players.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:12 AM ^
Except that no one watches minor sports outside of the hardest of hardcore freaks. Lots of people watch college sports. It’s not about the talent on display. It’s about the spectacle.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:17 AM ^
You would have to find a way to retain the spectacle. It is working so far, IMHO, though the changes have only been fractional in comparison to what I think will eventually need to happen.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:28 AM ^
The spectacle has little to do with the quality of play. It’s about a bunch of intangible stuff like pageantry, connection to one’s school and whatnot. Single-elimination playoffs are also far, far more entertaining than the best-of-seven slogs that the non-NFL leagues serve up.
College football could actually benefit from having the elite talent skimmed off the top. It would create more parity and make the CFP more like March Madness.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:32 AM ^
It's actually the emotional attachment to the school/team that is at the core of college athletics viewership. The spectacle is a direct result of that attachment, but not the cause of it. The lack of, or weakness of, the emotional attachment to a minor league is the one and only reason college athletics are so much more commercially successful than minor league sports.
Until the deep emotional bond dies away on a societal level, the money will continue to flow toward college sports, even as they continue to mutate the spectacle to copy pro leagues.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:44 AM ^
No, no they won't. The NCAA makes money off the tourney no matter who wins or loses. They really don't care nor should they.
I do think that the Covid year has given teams with alot of 4th, 5th and even 6th year players a large advantage. Many of these team are made up of mostly grad transfers. In '24 and '25 when the Covid year times out, it will be much harder to have a team made up of all grad students.
btw, I think the Covid year is one of the stupidest thing the NCAA ever came up with. Very unfair to kids coming out of HS in '20-'24 because it limits the amount of available scholarships.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
If we're going to mock them when they fail (A&M), then its a little sour grapes to say its unfair or "not right" when it works. I think the key is - you can win with or without it. Similar to the yankees payroll in the 90s. Money helps, but its not enough.
Also, digging a bit deeper, its tough to say it "worked" given that the Final 4 teams are not chock full of 5 star or even 4 star talent. Its a bizarre year where all the top seeds failed. Parity everywhere, so Miami basically just caught up to others and was the last one standing.
I think, depending on the final, the ratings will suck. There's no villain left. And there are too many cinderellas.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:14 AM ^
It will be interesting to see what the ratings will be. I have no intention of watching it
March 27th, 2023 at 11:26 AM ^
We've seen this before.. its one thing to have 1 upstart. But we kinda have 3.5. UConn was pretty good, but I don't know that anyone saw them as a favorite heading into the tourney. People liked SDState, but to some they're now the favorite to win it all... which nobody had.
Problem is, we're not familiar with the brand OR the players OR the coaches... for the most part... at least not nationally.
Personalities make sports captivating... even though people don't like saying that. You might hate Kyrie, or Durant, or whoever.. but they make it interesting to watch, when there's no other reason.
As the tourney has progressed, its already been less of a priority for me to watch because of all of this.. Watched a few ends of games.. but its gotten less interesting.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:47 AM ^
Because there are so many other interesting sports going on on an April Monday?
March 27th, 2023 at 12:31 PM ^
You're kinda making his point for him... there's not much else in sports land to watch, and he's still not that interested. that tells you either he doesnt care about basketball or what is on, is not captivating enough to spend time on
March 27th, 2023 at 10:42 AM ^
Who's "Uncle Seth"?
March 27th, 2023 at 10:53 AM ^
I just assumed it was Seth Freaking Rollins but I may have been wrong.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:24 PM ^
Seth Davis, from ESPN.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:42 AM ^
I wonder if this is what the kid from Northwestern had in mind when he was advocating for compensation a few years back.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:48 AM ^
Absolutely, why wouldn't it be?
March 27th, 2023 at 10:50 AM ^
The reason is this is all stupid is because we don't want unfettered capitalism in sports (whether we want it anywhere is a political discussion, and hence not to be brought up here, I think). We want sports to be a "fair" competition, to some great extent. This works well in professional leagues which enforce salary caps and other limits to try to level the playing field.
In college sports, we went from overly restrictive - and even ridiculous - rules, enforced in a very uneven manner across teams, to the completely opposite end of the spectrum, where there seems to be almost no rules. It is the cost of having the dipshit NCAA in charge for so long; it will take a while to fix. In the meanwhile, we will have bought-and-paid-for teams like Miami.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:49 AM ^
Baseball, for the most part, doesn't have any salary cap and millions of people still watch it...don't know why.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:51 AM ^
Not sure how “pro teams are on level playing fields,” especially not in Major League Baseball where the revenue disparities based on local media are colossal. Football is somewhat even, but the teams owned by people who are not billionaires and who strive to make money seem less inclined to fudge the cap and overspend—thinking of the Bengals as an example.
Wow... your post is completely accurate... if this was 2004.
MLB has done a pretty good job fixing the revenue disparity. Since 2012 the following teams have been in the world series: Houston (4x), Atlanta, Detroit, Washington, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, St Louis, and Kansas City. And Sand Diego is the third smallest market and just spent more money than anyone else this offseason when they signed Manny Machado and Xander Bogaerts
As messed up as the NFL has been in many ways... the one thing they do well is parity. They are the league all other leagues aspire to in terms of competitive balance.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
I can't reconcile all the different viewpoints you describe in the same post.
Doesn't "less chalky" = "more level playing field"?
Are you suggesting that SDSU NIL is supporting its players at a higher level than power 5 schools?
March 27th, 2023 at 11:38 AM ^
Less chalky means more chaos, fewer standard favorite-beats-underdog results.
I assume stringer is saying that NIL is causing the teams with the highest end talent to play less like a team and more like a group of individual showmen, as well as a group who accepts less coaching, and thus is making them more likely than before to lose one out of three games against inferior talent.
March 27th, 2023 at 12:18 PM ^
Yeah I just can't get onboard with making sweeping conclusions based on a couple of Miami games. I don't think NIL had anything to do with Purdue or Virginia. I also don't think NIL is making players less coachable - great players have always made money.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
how dare you compare them to Texas A&M, Miami actually has success on the field/court.
March 27th, 2023 at 10:59 AM ^
Pandora's Box has been opened - and, there is no way that NIL will be able to be capped.
So, when will this "buying" teams with NIL money for college teams end? It won't.
Certain big donors may realize their investment in NIL doesn't have the return they would like - eventually. So, what will they do? Maybe they (individually) will invest / spend a bit less - maybe they'll convince friends to join them and reduce their investment / spread the burden / etc.
I cannot foresee any NCAA regulation, or Federal Legislation, that will uniformly limit what an 18 to 22 year old student athlete can earn via NIL activities / endorsements / marketing.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:01 AM ^
I have heard of LifeWallet, the twins that play for their W team, etc. because people do talk about it often
March 27th, 2023 at 11:05 AM ^
Go check out Charles Barkley interview from 60 Minutes. He went off on the NCAA, calling college basketball a "travesty and disgrace." He said there will be 25 good teams who can afford to pay players then the rest of college basketball.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:34 AM ^
I would love for him to list those teams. Do you think FAU is on the list?
March 27th, 2023 at 12:13 PM ^
Yeah, like most things the Chuckster says, I find him to be very honest, sincere and interesting, but not particularly smart. First, the tournament he is covering contradicts the very argument that he is making. Second, he came from a generation where mid-majors and the like were largely irrelevant to begin with. So he seems to be advocating to "go back to the good old days where exactly the thing that I am saying I hate was the norm."
??? I was a bit puzzled.
Second, he came from a generation where mid-majors and the like were largely irrelevant to begin with.
Barkley's only NCAA tournament game was a first-round loss to mid-major Richmond that ended his college career.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:07 AM ^
I think you are seeing some acknowledgment of it - but not front and center as the main story.
-- Just saw an article yesterday how Miami paid $2.2M (or similar) to the currents men's roster in NIL including $800k to the point guard transfer.
-- Also saw something a month or so ago that the 'Canes got in trouble - not sure the penalty has been determined - for tampering with the "Instagram Twins" on the women's team. Proof that the school arranged a meeting with the family and the booster before they had entered the transfer portal.
The whole NIL push was to allow kids to make money from legit other streams i.e. endorsements for the kids in Olympic sports. Miami and A&M (and others) have made that into a sham that is just "above the board" pay for play while teams like UM and others have tried to follow the "spirit" of the rules.
I am not normally one for a lot of regulations but wouldn't it seem fair to at least have someone look out for extreme infractions? i.e. If the man/company behind Miami NIL paid $800k for the PG to do 1 commercial they should be able to show they spent millions airing it across the country rather then 2x on late late local Miami TV. Unfortunately I have ZERO confidence that the NCAA could do this and instead would create a huge, over-complicated, bureaucracy that would still fail in its mission.
March 27th, 2023 at 11:36 AM ^
How would you do this without a large bureaucracy (and penalties for non-compliance/non-cooperation)? Self-reporting?
The point is I think it WOULD be tough to do without a large bureaucracy and is almost definitely beyond the capability of the NCAA, hence I am not advocating for it and much as wishing something was possible in a simpler form.
One Idea--
--Maybe you come up with a staff of 10 for D1 or power 5 at the NCAA that gather data and present it to a board of 10 college presidents for review.
-- Make it a "snitch" based system....i.e. M reports the OSU QB Ewers got $X and a free truck from Company Y which was excessive.
-- Put the Onus on the schools and companies --- Staff can weed out nuisance complaints. If a complaint is deemed worthy, it become the responsibility of the school and the Company involved to document the deal and provide "proof" why the deal is market value ---i.e. Pro player X got the same money for an similar ad campaign in the region
-- These complaints are reviewed by the board quarterly and if ruled unfair they will be revoked or renegotiated at market price.
At minimum this would put some onus on the schools to make sure they have ducks in a row BEFORE offering these deals to players
March 27th, 2023 at 11:54 AM ^
So, if a booster paid a bunch of star transfers $1M each to play for Juwan would you be equally upset?