Name, Image, Likeness

Personally, I don't see "mystery" or "secretive" as an insult, and I think "perfectly legal" is important. Respectfully, I think you're reading too much into it.

Also, as someone who has worked with a lot of UNC journalists and even married one, I'd personally be quite happy if UNC offered me an honorary degree.

And the notion that there's some sort of anti-Duke bias at the Wall Street Journal is pretty much refuted by the fact that they keep hiring Chronicle people, all of whom put down roots there and tend not to leave.
You are a loyal friend, I’ll give you that. 😆
 
And husband.

And I’m still loyal to my industry — at least a little. Basically, there are so many legitimate complaints to make about it that I tend to get defensive about the ones that, to me at least, miss the mark.
Also impressed with your loyalty. Why, you even went so far as to try to put a positive spin on “it’s perfectly legal,” as though the full phrase somehow didn’t begin with the quite shady, Chansky-esque “even though …” 😂
 
Interesting legal article on the issues presented by the proposed NIL settlement.

Purely from a Duke basketball standpoint, I think we are hoping for 3 things to happen:

1) with the $20.5M revenue share cap, we smartly allocate between football and basketball and are effectively on a level playing field with basketball programs from the SEC and B1G. I have seen speculation that the Big East teams and Gonzaga may be able to spend more on basketball since they don't have football teams (but they also don't have football TV revenue).

2) since they are putting the Deloitte audited system in place to eliminate pay-for-play collectives, we will play by the rules and hope that it has teeth to force all other programs to play by the rules.

3) with Rachel Baker and our position as the highest-profile national CBB brand, we are able to sustain a competitive advantage of supplementing player revenue share from Duke with the best brand-backed player NIL revenue for the top freshmen (and other players) that we like to bring into the program.
 
Purely from a Duke basketball standpoint, I think we are hoping for 3 things to happen:

1) with the $20.5M revenue share cap, we smartly allocate between football and basketball and are effectively on a level playing field with basketball programs from the SEC and B1G. I have seen speculation that the Big East teams and Gonzaga may be able to spend more on basketball since they don't have football teams (but they also don't have football TV revenue).

2) since they are putting the Deloitte audited system in place to eliminate pay-for-play collectives, we will play by the rules and hope that it has teeth to force all other programs to play by the rules.

3) with Rachel Baker and our position as the highest-profile national CBB brand, we are able to sustain a competitive advantage of supplementing player revenue share from Duke with the best brand-backed player NIL revenue for the top freshmen (and other players) that we like to bring into the program.
You mean......more ads with Duke BB players in bingo games with senior citizens?
 
Purely from a Duke basketball standpoint, I think we are hoping for 3 things to happen:

1) with the $20.5M revenue share cap, we smartly allocate between football and basketball and are effectively on a level playing field with basketball programs from the SEC and B1G. I have seen speculation that the Big East teams and Gonzaga may be able to spend more on basketball since they don't have football teams (but they also don't have football TV revenue).

2) since they are putting the Deloitte audited system in place to eliminate pay-for-play collectives, we will play by the rules and hope that it has teeth to force all other programs to play by the rules.

3) with Rachel Baker and our position as the highest-profile national CBB brand, we are able to sustain a competitive advantage of supplementing player revenue share from Duke with the best brand-backed player NIL revenue for the top freshmen (and other players) that we like to bring into the program.
It certainly will open up new avenues for cheating.
 
Purely from a Duke basketball standpoint, I think we are hoping for 3 things to happen:

1) with the $20.5M revenue share cap, we smartly allocate between football and basketball and are effectively on a level playing field with basketball programs from the SEC and B1G. I have seen speculation that the Big East teams and Gonzaga may be able to spend more on basketball since they don't have football teams (but they also don't have football TV revenue).

2) since they are putting the Deloitte audited system in place to eliminate pay-for-play collectives, we will play by the rules and hope that it has teeth to force all other programs to play by the rules.

3) with Rachel Baker and our position as the highest-profile national CBB brand, we are able to sustain a competitive advantage of supplementing player revenue share from Duke with the best brand-backed player NIL revenue for the top freshmen (and other players) that we like to bring into the program.

I'm hoping something is done to protect women's sports and Olympic sports.

Outside the Power Four, most athletics department operate at a loss and/or take substantial university support and student fees. They'll either have to raise those payments/fees -- a tough sell when universities are in the midst of hiring freezes and looking at budget cuts -- or cut some sports.

Legally, the NCAA could *maybe* get away with insisting that schools offer a minimum number of sports with a minimum amount of investment in those sports. We're surely not going to see Title IX's quota plank rigidly enforced -- it really hasn't been to this point, and between trends in the government and trends in college sports, it won't be in the near future.

Some lawyers would probably say they could make a case that revenue-sports athletes should keep all the revenue, but in the court of public opinion, that'll be a tougher sell. You wouldn't want to be the lawyer who directly killed NCAA lacrosse or softball.
 
Purely from a Duke basketball standpoint, I think we are hoping for 3 things to happen:

1) with the $20.5M revenue share cap, we smartly allocate between football and basketball and are effectively on a level playing field with basketball programs from the SEC and B1G. I have seen speculation that the Big East teams and Gonzaga may be able to spend more on basketball since they don't have football teams (but they also don't have football TV revenue).

2) since they are putting the Deloitte audited system in place to eliminate pay-for-play collectives, we will play by the rules and hope that it has teeth to force all other programs to play by the rules.

3) with Rachel Baker and our position as the highest-profile national CBB brand, we are able to sustain a competitive advantage of supplementing player revenue share from Duke with the best brand-backed player NIL revenue for the top freshmen (and other players) that we like to bring into the program.
2) will not happen in terms of there being teeth to keep the entire SEC and most of the B1G from continuing to pay for play. If Duke decides to count on that, it will be to Duke's competitive detriment.
 
2) will not happen in terms of there being teeth to keep the entire SEC and most of the B1G from continuing to pay for play. If Duke decides to count on that, it will be to Duke's competitive detriment.
Yeah, I don't know. This is the P4 conferences and schools desire to hire Deloitte to police these deals and help level the playing field.

You can understand how they'd rather have those booster dollars going back to the athletic departments instead of into the players' pockets.

But the collective whole will need to be willing to punish the individual cheaters for the system to work. It's the NCAA all over again.
 
Yeah, I don't know. This is the P4 conferences and schools desire to hire Deloitte to police these deals and help level the playing field.

You can understand how they'd rather have those booster dollars going back to the athletic departments instead of into the players' pockets.

But the collective whole will need to be willing to punish the individual cheaters for the system to work. It's the NCAA all over again.
Right, I agree with that last part. And that’s why it won’t work. Texas, Alabama, and Ohio State aren’t going to let themselves be truly constrained by a gang of literal (ha) auditors for the benefit of Wake and Vandy.
 
I'm hoping something is done to protect women's sports and Olympic sports.

Outside the Power Four, most athletics department operate at a loss and/or take substantial university support and student fees. They'll either have to raise those payments/fees -- a tough sell when universities are in the midst of hiring freezes and looking at budget cuts -- or cut some sports.

Legally, the NCAA could *maybe* get away with insisting that schools offer a minimum number of sports with a minimum amount of investment in those sports. We're surely not going to see Title IX's quota plank rigidly enforced -- it really hasn't been to this point, and between trends in the government and trends in college sports, it won't be in the near future.

Some lawyers would probably say they could make a case that revenue-sports athletes should keep all the revenue, but in the court of public opinion, that'll be a tougher sell. You wouldn't want to be the lawyer who directly killed NCAA lacrosse or softball.
Ah yes- the Olympics have been squeaky clean since Jim Thorpe was DQ’d.
 
Assuming actual policing of this stuff with Deloitte (which I am extremely skeptical of on a whole range of fronts), doesn’t this new system massively benefit the Wakes and Vandys and Northwesterns of the world? Everyone basically would have $20mm to spend on players. It would kill the ability for the blue bloods to hoard talent, bc everyone would have the same amount of money to spend. Is that the right way to think about this (i.e., if you have enough to write the $20mm entry check annually, everyone is pretty much in a very, very similar place from an athlete compensation perspective)?
 
Assuming actual policing of this stuff with Deloitte (which I am extremely skeptical of on a whole range of fronts), doesn’t this new system massively benefit the Wakes and Vandys and Northwesterns of the world? Everyone basically would have $20mm to spend on players. It would kill the ability for the blue bloods to hoard talent, bc everyone would have the same amount of money to spend. Is that the right way to think about this (i.e., if you have enough to write the $20mm entry check annually, everyone is pretty much in a very, very similar place from an athlete compensation perspective)?
Yep, that's kind of the whole idea. The flip side, however, is that it will be a lot more painful for Wake Forest to find that $20M than Alabama.
 
Assuming actual policing of this stuff with Deloitte (which I am extremely skeptical of on a whole range of fronts), doesn’t this new system massively benefit the Wakes and Vandys and Northwesterns of the world? Everyone basically would have $20mm to spend on players. It would kill the ability for the blue bloods to hoard talent, bc everyone would have the same amount of money to spend. Is that the right way to think about this (i.e., if you have enough to write the $20mm entry check annually, everyone is pretty much in a very, very similar place from an athlete compensation perspective)?
Yes. Which is why one or more athletes may challenge this new system on antitrust grounds and win, causing additional chaos.
 
Back
Top