MBB Transfer Portal Thread: Moser Year 4

WTSooner said:
At least Livvy Dunne is out doing stuff to EARN her NIL. She is super marketable because of her looks. But nobody is giving her $1M to do gymnastics at LSU. Nobody is paying her for that. They are paying her to do tv and internet ads. THAT is what NIL is about. Given her following and the interest she generates, I understand companies paying her that. It's worth it. That isn't the same as some wealthy donor "buying" a player. Not the same at all.
Click to expand...
right because LSU gym loses millions a year .. that math doesn't work ..
 
SummaryGPTSTRBASTFG%FG3%FT%eFG%PERWS
Pedulla23-24
32​
16.4​
4.3​
4.6​
42.4​
32.5​
80.1​
48.9​
18.1​
3​
Career
102​
12.1​
3​
3.2​
42.1​
35.5​
83.3​
49.9​
17.2​
8.3​
Milos23-24
32​
9​
3.4​
4.4​
39.2​
29.6​
67.6​
45​
11.5​
2.1​
Career
64​
8.3​
3.1​
3.7​
42.4​
33.9​
71.8​
48.8​
11.1​
3.7​

For visuals:
1711555812530.png
 
CoachTalk said:
I get gripping about some things but just say you don’t like him. He’s a good player.
Click to expand...
this post was uncalled for Coach. Nothing wrong with questioning playing 2 shorter guards that aren't great shooters
 
WTSooner said:
That is a terrible comparison.

If a company is providing fringe benefits, that is factored into overall compensation. All we're saying is do the same for athletes. All that "extra" stuff has a value. And I'm guessing in most cases, for all but the top 10% of athletes, those fringe benefits are probably more than enough to cover what the university is making off of them.
Click to expand...
I was responding to a post that suggested a player's value should be capped because they make enough as it is. Whether 90% of athletes have a net neutral or net negative value to a university is a different issue altogether. You're probably right that most athletes in D-I basketball do not have a net positive value over the cost of their education, housing, and other benefits. But I wasn't talking about them.
 
WTSooner said:
It's also a poor argument in general.

Why should they be entitled to 50% of the revenues the OU athletic department (or football program) are generating? Employees aren't entitled to a certain percentage of revenues where I work. Or where anybody works. Why is that the default position of what "needs to happen?" Give em an hourly wage. Make them clock in and out. Or play them a reasonable "salary" that covers it all. But splitting revenues? Where, outside of professional sports, does THAT happen?
Click to expand...
Any sales job in America splits revenues with commissions. Part of the incoming revenue is paid to the sales team. Actors, lawyers, doctors... lots of professions share revenues.

My argument for paying athletes is any other student, even on a full-ride scholarship, has the potential to make unlimited income. A finance student on full-ride can work at Goldman Sachs as long as it doesn't interfere with the curriculum and GPA. An engineer student can invent a robot and sell it and make money. A marketing student can start a business and make as much as the business produces. And, an average "attractive" student on a NMS scholarship can post on IG or TikTok and be a SM influencer. But athletes didn't have this ability. Yet they were bringing more notoriety and revenue to the Universities than all students combined. Why not share in that success as compensation?

Not to try to further hijack the Portal Thread, but just a quick thought. If the term "student-athlete" is true and fair, then they should be allowed earnings just like students.
 
I guess I got the NIL convo going. My bad....runs away with the matches in hand. Lol.

------

@WTSooner

"That'll work"....is my, very fast, way to say, "things, although super incomplete, are trending up". Or the roster. Hypothetically, of course.


I fuccing love(d) Uzan as a kid (that I don't know but still). He just isn't ferocious. He's unassuming. That's my opinion.

With Pedulla, you'd get an excitable and passionate local kid who will energize the team and the fanbase. The hope for me is 1) his numbers improve (shooting goes up, turnovers go down) 2) OU can find a way to make Sean + Javian work. Defensively, I'm concerned but you can manage it....especially if you get another lengthy wing type and a couple more bigs especially Garrison protecting the rim/paint.

And if you add Garrison, now you're really getting the fanbase excited while improving the actual play/team (IMO).. I'm not the type who thinks you HAVE to have local kids but it certainly helps with OU fans...for sure, no question.
 
CoachTalk said:
Is 35% poorly?
Click to expand...
He shot 32% this season and yeah I’d like better. If we had other good shooters it wouldn’t matter as much, but this team struggled shooting this year. I haven’t talked bad about the kid. I never said I didn’t want him. Just was basically wondering if him and McCollum could pair because they seem a lot like the same type of players
 
Can someone remind me why Pedulla wasn’t recruited by OU out of high school?
 
AltSooner33 said:
He shot 32% this season and yeah I’d like better. If we had other good shooters it wouldn’t matter as much, but this team struggled shooting this year. I haven’t talked bad about the kid. I never said I didn’t want him. Just was basically wondering if him and McCollum could pair because they seem a lot like the same type of players
Click to expand...
It worked with Cousins and Woodard.

At the time, I never thought moving what is considered to be the perfect PG to a wing would work, but both Cousins and Jordan played better when they flipped to have Cousins run the point. Both improved their outside shooting, Isiah improved APG/TO, and Woodard wasn't a liability on defense. The team was MUCH better.

It can work...if both guys are on board.
 
MJSooner said:
Any sales job in America splits revenues with commissions. Part of the incoming revenue is paid to the sales team. Actors, lawyers, doctors... lots of professions share revenues.

My argument for paying athletes is any other student, even on a full-ride scholarship, has the potential to make unlimited income. A finance student on full-ride can work at Goldman Sachs as long as it doesn't interfere with the curriculum and GPA. An engineer student can invent a robot and sell it and make money. A marketing student can start a business and make as much as the business produces. And, an average "attractive" student on a NMS scholarship can post on IG or TikTok and be a SM influencer. But athletes didn't have this ability. Yet they were bringing more notoriety and revenue to the Universities than all students combined. Why not share in that success as compensation?

Not to try to further hijack the Portal Thread, but just a quick thought. If the term "student-athlete" is true and fair, then they should be allowed earnings just like students.
Click to expand...
I have ZERO problem with athletes being able to work jobs, have additional income, or even be paid for their true NIL.

I have a problem with buying players and calling it NIL.

Some say you can't legally split those two into separate categories. I say it can be done.
 
BoulderSooner said:
almost all pro leagues CBA's are divided by % of revenue ..
Click to expand...
Which makes sense because the main expense (and thus, what eventually determines the profit) is the labor. So it would be illogical to set the salary pool based on profit (unless it was based on profit before labor).

But, if you factor in the scholarships and other expenses, there might not be as much left over for the players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top