Name, Image, Likeness

Larranaga is 75 YO. Why can't he retire when he wants to? Also, no telling what kinds of physical ailments, etc.
Oh no problem with him retiring. I'm just saying his gripes about NIL on the way out seemed very....in bad faith, given his successful use of them and his prior statements.
 
Oh no problem with him retiring. I'm just saying his gripes about NIL on the way out seemed very....in bad faith, given his successful use of them and his prior statements.
I don't understand your criticism regarding NIL. Him not like liking NIL while using it is, to me, not bad faith. It is him doing his job. To fail to use it would have been bad faith to his employer. His decision to quit coaching and retiring over not wanting to coach in the new environment is, to me, very understandable and acceptable.
 
I don't understand your criticism regarding NIL. Him not like liking NIL while using it is, to me, not bad faith. It is him doing his job. To fail to use it would have been bad faith to his employer. His decision to quit coaching and retiring over not wanting to coach in the new environment is, to me, very understandable and acceptable.
yes, and K probably thinks similarly. The NIL environment has required an astonishing amount of change.
 
You're the CEO of a widget company, and have been doing that job for 30 years. You make great widgets. Everybody wants them and you have honed your widget expertise your whole life. It's what you do. Suddenly, a new product, developed in just two years with uncertainty all the development path, makes your widgets completely obsolete. Your widget knowledge is now completely useless. You can't even repair old widgets, because they were always designed for each one to last a very brief time, just four years until full replacement. The new product lifespan is even shorter - just one year - and operates in a completely different environment.

You don't have empathy for widget guy?
Was the widget guy also employing unpaid laborers during his 30 year run? Is that not what drove both his success and the development of the new product?

Don’t necessarily think I owe the widget guy any empathy in that case, though he’s certainly not to be blamed for deciding he doesn’t want to operate in this new environment. But maybe don’t leave your one-year widgets in the middle of a production cycle.
 
Was the widget guy also employing unpaid laborers during his 30 year run? Is that not what drove both his success and the development of the new product?

Don’t necessarily think I owe the widget guy any empathy in that case, though he’s certainly not to be blamed for deciding he doesn’t want to operate in this new environment. But maybe don’t leave your one-year widgets in the middle of a production cycle.
He probably left enough of his salary on the table to buy an undersized shooting guard and a field goal kicker.
 
BTW, do you agree that, with Trump's actions against DEI programs, Title IX enforcement will likely dry up? Ergo, policy paper on NIL being shared proportionately by men and women college athletes will go nowhere.
 
BTW, do you agree that, with Trump's actions against DEI programs, Title IX enforcement will likely dry up? Ergo, policy paper on NIL being shared proportionately by men and women college athletes will go nowhere.
But wouldn't you expect some group of women athletes to file a lawsuit on the issue at some point? Then it won't be a matter of the government enforcing anything, but they will be part of defending that lawsuit. How the judge interprets Title IX's applicability to NIL would be a major factor in the outcome of that lawsuit, I imagine.
 
But wouldn't you expect some group of women athletes to file a lawsuit on the issue at some point? Then it won't be a matter of the government enforcing anything, but they will be part of defending that lawsuit. How the judge interprets Title IX's applicability to NIL would be a major factor in the outcome of that lawsuit, I imagine.
Unless he cuts all federal funding to universities. I think Title IX is only applicable if they're receiving federal funds. And, no, I don't think they'll actually do that, but, then again ...
 
BTW, do you agree that, with Trump's actions against DEI programs, Title IX enforcement will likely dry up? Ergo, policy paper on NIL being shared proportionately by men and women college athletes will go nowhere.
Trying to take a position that NIL cash should be distributed evenly among men's and women's sports is a great way to push for suppression of Title IX in total - especially with the current administration. It provides a great sound bite for critics to latch onto and seek to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. It is also a great way to keep NIL in the world of shady collectives rather than the more transparent revenue share model that is set to come into play.
 
NYT article (I believe I have provided a gift link) about Woj's move from ESPN to be general manager of the St. Bonaventure basketball team. Interesting to see his perspective that they are OK being a stopping ground as players try to ascend to the elite schools. He is running around the world chasing NIL and recruiting opportunities for a school that is at a huge disadvantage.

Also ironic that I just made a Bob Lanier joke in another thread, immediately before reading this. Lanier went to St. Bonaventure.

 
Duke Field Hockey player Issy Carey extraordinary murals of individual athletes and Coaches (Coach Pollard baseball)
 
I new curve ball for NIL. If it's the first step I can't see it as a good thing for non-revenue sports in general and women's programs specifically.


TL;DR - Direct NIL payments from schools no longer fall under Title IX.
This also just shows it's at the whims of the current administration. What if the rules change every four years?? Mayhem....
 
I new curve ball for NIL. If it's the first step I can't see it as a good thing for non-revenue sports in general and women's programs specifically.


TL;DR - Direct NIL payments from schools no longer fall under Title IX.
The Biden memo was unlikely to do much, partly because it would almost certainly be overturned by Trump, partly because, as you state, it covered direct NIL payments. I'm pretty sure most NIL payments are not direct, at least right now. I expect that whatever payments start after the "House" settlement takes effect might be subject to some Title IX governance and will probably be tied up in litigation for a while as a result.
 
The Biden memo was unlikely to do much, partly because it would almost certainly be overturned by Trump, partly because, as you state, it covered direct NIL payments. I'm pretty sure most NIL payments are not direct, at least right now. I expect that whatever payments start after the "House" settlement takes effect might be subject to some Title IX governance and will probably be tied up in litigation for a while as a result.
Direct payments as a result of House is the ONLY thing both administrators are talking about as it relates to TItle IX governance. One said one thing, the other said the other. Yes, indirect NIL payments are not subject to it -- collectives can pay football and men's basketball players 100x the women's counterparts should they so choose for. The previous guidance was DIRECT payments ($20M/year) ARE subject to Title IX; now, they're saying, they're not. Of course, it still may be tied up in litigation, but that's the education department's stance right now. They have already made a conclusion in regard to this.
 
Direct payments as a result of House is the ONLY thing both administrators are talking about as it relates to TItle IX governance. One said one thing, the other said the other. Yes, indirect NIL payments are not subject to it -- collectives can pay football and men's basketball players 100x the women's counterparts should they so choose for. The previous guidance was DIRECT payments ($20M/year) ARE subject to Title IX; now, they're saying, they're not. Of course, it still may be tied up in litigation, but that's the education department's stance right now. They have already made a conclusion in regard to this.
Is that ol' thing still around?
 
Direct payments as a result of House is the ONLY thing both administrators are talking about as it relates to TItle IX governance. One said one thing, the other said the other. Yes, indirect NIL payments are not subject to it -- collectives can pay football and men's basketball players 100x the women's counterparts should they so choose for. The previous guidance was DIRECT payments ($20M/year) ARE subject to Title IX; now, they're saying, they're not. Of course, it still may be tied up in litigation, but that's the education department's stance right now. They have already made a conclusion in regard to this.
The post I quoted and most of the articles about the Biden memo do specifically refer to NIL payments, while the House settlement articles usually refer to "revenue sharing," which I assume means they are talking about university/NCAA revenue from tickets, TV contracts, etc.
 
Back
Top