First Two Texas Players with NIL deals ... can you guess who?

Godz40acres said:
Whatever they "earn" should go to the school until their scholarship value is met. But, that's just me. Sorry, I have to go take my meds now....
Click to expand...

Nah, they "pay" for scholarships with blood, sweat and tears.
They put their future health and well being on the line everyday for our entertainment.
 
moondog_LFZ said:
Nah, they "pay" for scholarships with blood, sweat and tears.
They put their future health and well being on the line everyday for our entertainment.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be argumentative and I do understand the general point you wish to make...
..but...
Pretty sure they "put their health and well being on the line" for their own love of the game, access to and/or free quality upper education, and/or an opportunity to go pro and try to make a career of it...all at their own descretion. The fact that we happen to be entertained by it is coincidental, and I'm sure ranks waaay down on most players list somewhere right around "laying it all out there for the school"
 
Last edited:
RainH2burntO said:
Not trying to be argumentative and I do understand the general point you wish to make...
..but...
Pretty sure they "put their health and well being on the line" for their own love of the game, access to and/or free quality upper education, and/or an opportunity to go pro and try to make a career of it...all at their own descretion. The fact that we happen to be entertained by it is coincidental, and I'm sure ranks waaay down on most players list somewhere right around "laying it all out there for the school"
Click to expand...

Amateurism for its own sake is fine for nonrevenue sports.
 
RainH2burntO said:
Not trying to be argumentative and I do understand the general point you wish to make...
..but...
Pretty sure they "put their health and well being on the line" for their own love of the game, access to and/or free quality upper education, and/or an opportunity to go pro and try to make a career of it...all at their own descretion. The fact that we happen to be entertained by it is coincidental, and I'm sure ranks waaay down on most players list somewhere right around "laying it all out there for the school"
Click to expand...
If we weren't paying in one way or another to be entertained by the game, it wouldn't exist.
There would be no need for scholarships.
There would be no professional league to go to.
It all hinges on our interest and entertainment.
 
moondog_LFZ said:
Nah, they "pay" for scholarships with blood, sweat and tears.
They put their future health and well being on the line everyday for our entertainment.
Click to expand...
no...most do it with hopes of huge contracts. I doubt ANY of them say, "I will play and risk my health for the joy of the fans.". I had to work a full-time job while carrying a full load at UT to pay for school. They get a free education because they were blessed with size and speed?
 
stevedallas said:
no...most do it with hopes of huge contracts. I doubt ANY of them say, "I will play and risk my health for the joy of the fans.". I had to work a full-time job while carrying a full load at UT to pay for school. They get a free education because they were blessed with size and speed?
Click to expand...
And they probably put in as much time on their craft as you did at your job.
Not to mention they've spent most of their lives in gyms and at practices developing the size and speed they are "blessed" with.
 
I don't really care if players get a product endorsements in and of itself. The article mentioned above talked about the roundabout way it all has to be done, as nothing UT related can be mentioned.

The issue is that now hiring recruits and players is now legal, or at least laundered through product endorsements. All the classic crooked recruiting stories of FedEx envelopes of money to ATM recruits, no-show jobs at Big Red motors for OU players, or Erick Dickerson's TransAm would now be fully OK, if the relevant player just stood in front of a video camera and said a few approving words about a booster's business.

Now is that issue a problem - I'm undecided. The original intent on keeping money out of the recruiting and player process wasn't, as lazy sports writers who have all gotten the same Twitter theme of "NCAA steals money from poor starving players who have to forage for food" have said for years.

It was to level the colligate playing field, so that schools with lots of boosters who wanted to spend (waste) their money buying the best players wouldn't be able to do so, and thus smaller schools would be able to compete.

Personally, I don't really care about the smaller schools. If the fans of Baylor's or TCU's can't scrape up the funds to spend as much on buying players as Texas or OU, then it's on them. Plus with ever those schools now spending millions on coaches, then spending a few grand each to buy players, even 10-20 grand for star recruits, isn't a huge impact on the cost of funding a football program.

But that's where the impact of this is going to be felt - not some start up hat seller racking his brain to figure out how to sell a hat that's tied into a UT football player without mentioning UT - like an advertising version of charades or such. It's in the bigger and already more successful schools having boosters willing to spend the bucks to hire / bribe recruits, and now with the Portal!, members of the team.

In effect, college football will have free agency, with players being able to pick schools based on the highest product endorsement offer, and then swap schools at least once per year if a better offer comes down later. It's a stunning change from recent college football history, and I'd guess the outcome will be much like college basketball the past few years, with the influx of shoe contract money.
 
Horns11 said:
Amateurism for its own sake is fine for nonrevenue sports.
Click to expand...

moondog_LFZ said:
If we weren't paying in one way or another to be entertained by the game, it wouldn't exist.
There would be no need for scholarships.
There would be no professional league to go to.
It all hinges on our interest and entertainment.
Click to expand...
I don't think it necessarily proves my point..just that it is interesting...but sport existed long before it was so spectator(and cash) driven and would exist without us...just not in same form.(And the boys would still play gleefully)

I do agree the amount of money raked in makes for a compelling case....it just doesn't change my view of the subject any more than my views on the subject of what an employee makes relative to the owner and founder of a company. The fact that the owner makes 3 mil per year and the lower level employee makes 70k is irrelevant in my opinion. And I can assure you both I would feel the same regardless of which persons shoes I were in. It is just the way I was raised and a matter of principle and philosophy for me.
Which brings us to the real issue...most people who support paying student-athletes are the same who support unions...it is a sociopolitical/philosophically(and value)-driven issue....and much depends on how you were raised. I was raised by a man born in 1911 who believed you were responsible for what happened to you, what you had and didnt have, and what you earned, and no man (or government) owed you anything.
I do respect your positions and understand it is a tricky subject.
It seems for most people...larger philosophical aspects aside...it obviously comes down to how you view the opportunities the players are already given and benefits they enjoy vs the massive amount of money the school brings in from the sport they play. (I'm in the it's something they want to do for their own gain and are compensated plenty for 18-20 year olds doing something they love camp)
It do think it is a fascinating subject. Who knows, maybe someday I'll move a little on my position on it.....
(Btw, I'm arguing against paying players not really this NIL thing, which I don't really have an opinion on other than it will likely be opening a can of worms)
 
Last edited:
No problem with the NIL thing but a free degree from a major institution literally is financial compensation for your blood, sweat and tears.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
I don't really care if players get a product endorsements in and of itself. The article mentioned above talked about the roundabout way it all has to be done, as nothing UT related can be mentioned.

The issue is that now hiring recruits and players is now legal, or at least laundered through product endorsements. All the classic crooked recruiting stories of FedEx envelopes of money to ATM recruits, no-show jobs at Big Red motors for OU players, or Erick Dickerson's TransAm would now be fully OK, if the relevant player just stood in front of a video camera and said a few approving words about a booster's business.

Now is that issue a problem - I'm undecided. The original intent on keeping money out of the recruiting and player process wasn't, as lazy sports writers who have all gotten the same Twitter theme of "NCAA steals money from poor starving players who have to forage for food" have said for years.

It was to level the colligate playing field, so that schools with lots of boosters who wanted to spend (waste) their money buying the best players wouldn't be able to do so, and thus smaller schools would be able to compete.

Personally, I don't really care about the smaller schools. If the fans of Baylor's or TCU's can't scrape up the funds to spend as much on buying players as Texas or OU, then it's on them. Plus with ever those schools now spending millions on coaches, then spending a few grand each to buy players, even 10-20 grand for star recruits, isn't a huge impact on the cost of funding a football program.

But that's where the impact of this is going to be felt - not some start up hat seller racking his brain to figure out how to sell a hat that's tied into a UT football player without mentioning UT - like an advertising version of charades or such. It's in the bigger and already more successful schools having boosters willing to spend the bucks to hire / bribe recruits, and now with the Portal!, members of the team.

In effect, college football will have free agency, with players being able to pick schools based on the highest product endorsement offer, and then swap schools at least once per year if a better offer comes down later. It's a stunning change from recent college football history, and I'd guess the outcome will be much like college basketball the past few years, with the influx of shoe contract money.
Click to expand...
This could get really ugly for college football. A slippery slope. Not really fair to the teams who are not in the top ten every year. Lots of money thrown at the top players from the top programs.

This is all the more reason why we need a 2nd bracket with its own playoff and championship. It will give lesser teams something to play for nearing the end of the season; seeding for a playoff. This will bring added exposure to players to capitalize on branding for the lesser teams.
So to reiterate:
Bracket 1 would consist of the top 14 teams plus two byes for the top two seeds, who would have earned the byes due to best record and strength of schedule(to prevent soft scheduling for seeding). Having a week off to begin the playoffs is a tremendous advantage. Healing time for players.

Bracket 2 would consist of team seeds 15 -30.
This would bring more excitement for college football when teams like Minnesota, Stanford, USF, Tulsa, Kentucky etc. could all play for a championship and the players, who work their asses off, could earn money by building their name. That's fair.

Reduce the season back to eleven games and eliminate conference championships. So the most games any one team would play in the playoffs would be four, that's a 15 game season, and that's only for 2 teams in either bracket.
Personally I love this playoff format.
Nothing wrong with having two champions at the end of the season.
But i'm thinking I am about 5 or 10 years ahead of the powers that be.
 
Last edited:
I think eventually recruits are going to go to the team where they can make the most money. Their decision will be based on money. Love of the college or love of the coaches or proximity to the college won't matter as much.
 
Yeah, as I said, it's free agency for players. Not just like in the old days of such things, behind the scenes for recruits, but with the Portal!, for current players. And I've yet to read any sports writer talk about that - it's all rah rah for players being now able to sell Granny's needlepoint pillows with their face on them, or such minor rubbish.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
Yeah, as I said, it's free agency for players. Not just like in the old days of such things, behind the scenes for recruits, but with the Portal!, for current players. And I've yet to read any sports writer talk about that - it's all rah rah for players being now able to sell Granny's needlepoint pillows with their face on them, or such minor rubbish.
Click to expand...
There has to be parameters, rules or this could get ugly. Underground bidding for the best players leaves a disgusting foul taste.
 
Another thought perhaps recruits won't be in a hurry to go to the draft if they are making good money in college.
 
Pomspoms said:
Another thought perhaps recruits won't be in a hurry to go to the draft if they are making good money in college.
Click to expand...
Funny- I was thinking the same thing.
I see both sides, what if I were a Bijan Robinson type athlete and I walk by a store with my Name and my Number on a $120 shirt? It makes sense that player should get something.
I’ll never know how that feels, but I can see how an athlete could feel this seems strange.
Free education, I get it as well… but a lot of people are making a lot more $ off a players NIL than what this “free” education costs.
I think parameters will be put in place. But , and I can’t believe I changed my mind- but I’m all for it.
If nothing else it will drive good behavior or the athlete will lose the endorsements.
It should also keep someone in school longer…. Lastly this could help a kid change the course for his family- and I’m speaking of lil brothers/sisters.
 
Last edited:
Pomspoms said:
There has to be parameters, rules or this could get ugly. Underground bidding for the best players leaves a disgusting foul taste.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't even have to be underground anymore. Product endorsements are OK, after being slapped around with this issue and the Twitter fueled theme of "NCAA steals money from starving athletes", I think the NCAA is done with it all, and won't bother trying to prove a booster hired a 5 star player to product endorse to get him to go that school, from just a business decision.

We shall see, but my guess is single year free agency for players. Lots of "Hey didn't he play for the other team last year?". Is that a bad thing? I'm undecided.

The traditional thinking has been the influence of money into college football helps the bigger, more historically successful schools. But this isn't the 70's where Baylor had huge structural differences from Texas. There's no reason why boosters from smaller schools can't offer the same money as ones from bigger schools.

At some point - 50 grand per video ad, 100 grand, it'll no longer pass the look test and it's just obvious player buyer. But who knows what that payment point is until we get there.

Big changes ahead, and it won't be via some hat with OO on it.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
I didn't think jerseys were sold with player's names on them. Used not to - has that changed in the past few years?
Click to expand...
Yeah , I might be wrong… I’ve just seen people walking around with the number 10 jersey with Young on the back
And I remember T-shirts that had the Heisman Trophy with Ricky’s dreads, and the “You better Hadnot mess with Texas”… that type of stuff. Someone was making money.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
But it doesn't even have to be underground anymore. Product endorsements are OK, after being slapped around with this issue and the Twitter fueled theme of "NCAA steals money from starving athletes", I think the NCAA is done with it all, and won't bother trying to prove a booster hired a 5 star player to product endorse to get him to go that school, from just a business decision.

We shall see, but my guess is single year free agency for players. Lots of "Hey didn't he play for the other team last year?". Is that a bad thing? I'm undecided.

The traditional thinking has been the influence of money into college football helps the bigger, more historically successful schools. But this isn't the 70's where Baylor had huge structural differences from Texas. There's no reason why boosters from smaller schools can't offer the same money as ones from bigger schools.

At some point - 50 grand per video ad, 100 grand, it'll no longer pass the look test and it's just obvious player buyer. But who knows what that payment point is until we get there.

Big changes ahead, and it won't be via some hat with OO on it.
Click to expand...
Hey - great points…. Red MCCombs works a deal for a kid to get a contract for $250k to do a few commercials?
On the brighter side, this puts UT in a much better position against the sooners. I don’t know how lucrative a deal could be on unfiltered cigarettes, those really bad strip mall casinos or mobile homes.
 
Bubba,

Does Barry still "control" Smith (I know he died) & Sonic?

When is Riley going to catch on to having players do "valet parking" at the casinos? We both know they won't work for the money, plus everybody going up there is on the "polyester express" compliments of Greyhound.
 
NRHorn said:
Yeah , I might be wrong… I’ve just seen people walking around with the number 10 jersey with Young on the back
And I remember T-shirts that had the Heisman Trophy with Ricky’s dreads, and the “You better Hadnot mess with Texas”… that type of stuff. Someone was making money.
Click to expand...

It may be different with a former player's name, especially if the school has retired the number such that no other player could be 10 / Young.

The T-shirt was probably a garage special - the Heisman is undoubtedly a copyrighted image.
 
Duck,

The Hype$man t-shirt for Ricky was not sanctioned by The University, and therefore the guy selling them was told he could not sell them on University property. Basically, the school ran him off just before my kids got theirs. I was able to get his name and phone number and make arrangements for both my children to get one of the shirts.
 
That's what I remember - some garage printing of them.

No more jealous guard of the school image, mascot, name, and even color than that school.

If any university really wanted to help these poor players, that ever sports writer said had to fish for carp in a city park, they'd allow them to use the school's logo, image, and colors in their NIL or NIB or whatever focus group tested name they came up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top