- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ross Dellenger article on LSU’s NIL Fund
Posted on 3/14/25 at 10:31 am to Phillytiger9
Posted on 3/14/25 at 10:31 am to Phillytiger9
quote:I read "fund" as "fraud" and was worried for a second
Ross Dellenger article on LSU’s NIL Fund
0
Posted on 3/14/25 at 10:34 am to GeauxLSU4
Yep, and we're doing the same BS by firing a winner in basketball and hiring a boy scout to replace him.
You can play by the rules, or you can win, but there's NO WAY IN HELL you can do both.
You can play by the rules, or you can win, but there's NO WAY IN HELL you can do both.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 10:36 am to Phillytiger9
I was a little surprised that the article didn't mention that Pepper Rutland was a starting linebacker for LSU in the 1970's, and a good one.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 10:40 am to GeauxLSU4
quote:
Do they? Please show me all of the obligations the LSU football roster is fulfilling
How am I supposed to know? It could be showing up at a damn food drive.
quote:
Illegal according to whom? The NCAA has no jurisdiction in the NIL world. The Supreme Court already told them so.
Did they? Can you provide a link?
This post was edited on 3/14/25 at 10:41 am
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:01 am to Phillytiger9
sustaining this is going to be very difficult for even programs like LSU
Imagine these other programs with less stature then SEC and Big Ten teams, some are going to have to close up shop
Imagine these other programs with less stature then SEC and Big Ten teams, some are going to have to close up shop
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:01 am to Phillytiger9
Spending millions on a college football team roster is out of control insanity.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:02 am to LSBoosie
I don't believe the Supremes made that specific ruling; they just gave the go-ahead to NIL. I believe it was the federal court that heard the University of Tennessee case that essentially said the NCAA didn't have the authority to enforce its rules on NIL.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:06 am to paulb52
quote:
Spending millions on a college football team roster is out of control insanity.
For a program that brings in 10’s of millions in revenue, it’s not.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:07 am to LSBoosie
quote:
If they didn't, it would be pay-for-play, which is illegal.
NIL collectives are essentially pay for play. It is legal
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:21 am to JimTiger72
Private Equity rules
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:32 am to LSBoosie
quote:
How am I supposed to know? It could be showing up at a damn food drive.
Don’t be ridiculous. The players aren’t doing a damn thing now besides collecting their check.
quote:
Did they? Can you provide a link?
You heard of the Alston case be the NCAA. Google is your friend and you can read all about it.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:39 am to timlan2057
quote:
Glad to see it but it’s a damn shame college football has come to this
Agree but this is pretty much the culmination of everything that everyone associated with college football has done over the past 30 years. Insane TV contracts, insane coaching contracts, firing guys after year 3, 1-year scholarship renewal periods + shitty transfer rules for the athlete...not to mention the complete abdication of the idea that athletes were at a school to, you know, go to school.
CFB was asking for it, IMO.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 11:50 am to JimTiger72
quote:
NIL collectives are essentially pay for play. It is legal
99% of all NIL "essentially" pay for play and it's been that way since it started.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:07 pm to timlan2057
quote:
Glad to see it but it’s a damn shame college football has come to this.
its pathetic.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:15 pm to DalenSA
Maybe true. But players are on the field and it's always about the jimmies and Joes
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:26 pm to GeauxLSU4
quote:
We tried to do NIL the right way when it was introduced and got left behind. Thank A&M, Oregon, and others for making it pay for play.
This was always going to happen, and for whatever reason I would get destroyed in the MSB threads on the subject. Next up will be collective bargaining, and either some federal legislation creating a carveout/loophole for college football, or the teams technically breaking away from the colleges and paying affiliation/syndication/licensing fees to get away from title IX.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:27 pm to MontanaTiger
quote:
Does this mean that revenue-sharing and NIL will exist side-by-side?
Yeah, rev share is what the university pays the athlete for performing for the university. Will be a flat number for all players. Some question about will gymnast make what football players make, maybe a formula based on what the sport generates for the university.
NIL is unique to each individual athlete but some forward thinking universities (Texas Tech is one) are paying players flat rate NIL deals. DL get x amount guaranteed and then they are free to pursue deals over and above the flat rate. This prevents big winners big losers on the roster. I know for a fact every player on the TT roster last year got 60k. The higher profile players get the 60 base then can work other deals.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:37 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
People don't realize that there are very few people that actually have the power to make a difference financially. This is relevant when people talk about firing McMahon. If these 3-5 people don't want to put up the money, it's not going to happen
I'd also say this, there are people that if it was known we could or would hire - who might motivate those 3-5 people to want to put up that money.
Definitely 1 for sure. In fact I would be willing to bet one or some of the alleged 3-5 have even suggested as much.
But IMHO the more pressing reason for Scott to run it back one more year is so he does not have to even entertain bumping up against that scenario as several other schools will bid for and one will hire that 1 coach this year.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:47 pm to Tiger Ugly
quote:
I'd also say this, there are people that if it was known we could or would hire - who might motivate those 3-5 people to want to put up that money.
I'd agree. Though I think it could be difficult to negotiate with a current coach about coming to your school while still having your head coach employed.
quote:
Definitely 1 for sure. In fact I would be willing to bet one or some of the alleged 3-5 have even suggested as much.
But IMHO the more pressing reason for Scott to run it back one more year is so he does not have to even entertain bumping up against that scenario as several other schools will bid for and one will hire that 1 coach this year.
I think the bigger problem with this is that we have no clue if that 1 coach would ever want to come back to LSU. This administration and that 1 coach aren't exactly on the best terms.
Posted on 3/14/25 at 12:54 pm to DalenSA
quote:Agreed. Even if we had an all star team Kelly would still lose 3 games.
We can have an unlimited budget, but it’s still BK who has to prepare these guys
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News