Keeping Up With Old Friends Thread

I'm still curious if a coach wants a player commanding $X, and whomever at collective doesn't agree that player is worth $X, but technically can support...do they just tell the coach it's a no-go, or only willing to offer "$Y". If so, whoever is leading the collective has a lot of power in decision making...and more the reason I'd rather the coach have that purchase power directly, vs. collective leader.
The coach does decide who gets how much. The collective raises money and then lets the coach know the "total" amount available,
. The coach then decides how to allocate the funds.
I know people think NIL is going to ruin the sport, but the leader of a collective getting into a power grab/pissing contest with the head coach would be infinitely worse. Luckily I don't think that happens here with Pitino at the helm, but we'll see it soon enough at big Southern football schools I'm sure.
 
I'm still curious if a coach wants a player commanding $X, and whomever at collective doesn't agree that player is worth $X, but technically can support...do they just tell the coach it's a no-go, or only willing to offer "$Y". If so, whoever is leading the collective has a lot of power in decision making...and more the reason I'd rather the coach have that purchase power directly, vs. collective leader.
The collectives work with Matt and coach. The process is rather complex, with collectives and university working hand in hand.

The big risk is that collectives are commiting to paying plsyers with $ that may not be fully funded, and the player us paid over the course of the contract.

Almost for certain some collectives will default on their commitments if they do not raise enough funds.

I'm less concerned about collectives taking too much of the pie because the margins in basketball are too narrow and the big money comes from smart wealthier businessman. As one person told me, "you think a smart supporter is going to spend $100k and let us take $20k of that".

All in all i see nil collectives as a bad business proposition for non football schools. It's too much work to raise a few million bucks, the overhead for events , legal fees, and marketing too high, and too little left at the end of the day.

Football schools that raise $30-$40 million in nil is a different story.
 
The collectives work with Matt and coach. The process is rather complex, with collectives and university working hand in hand.

The big risk is that collectives are commiting to paying plsyers with $ that may not be fully funded, and the player us paid over the course of the contract.

Almost for certain some collectives will default on their commitments if they do not raise enough funds.

I'm less concerned about collectives taking too much of the pie because the margins in basketball are too narrow and the big money comes from smart wealthier businessman. As one person told me, "you think a smart supporter is going to spend $100k and let us take $20k of that".

All in all i see nil collectives as a bad business proposition for non football schools. It's too much work to raise a few million bucks, the overhead for events , legal fees, and marketing too high, and too little left at the end of the day.

Football schools that raise $30-$40 million in nil is a different story.
One hundred per cent agree. It seems inevitable for many reasons that at some point football and non football schools will have to totally split from one another.
 

As much as I trash his crazy behaviors and how staff didn't reign him in, I think he is a really good player. I also think that apart from the antics, off the court is a really nice, well spoken kid. People wonder if the concussion(s) have altered his behavior.

I'll admit I am a pushover. Rysheed Jordan, described aptly by some as a bad guy, is someone I root for to pull it all together.

I think most of us are like that.
 
Back
Top