|
Ive got to imagine recruiting
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 2480
|
Game Day Hero [4136]
TigerPulse: 95%
36
|
Ive got to imagine recruiting
1
Nov 18, 2024, 11:25 PM
|
|
Will take a huge spike upwards this off-season
Does anyone disagree with that?
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Phenom [14558]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 10515
Joined: 1999
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
1
Nov 19, 2024, 1:02 AM
|
|
Revenue sharing is gonna change the game. Again.
I think it benefits Clemson from our current position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Athletic Dir [1170]
TigerPulse: 100%
26
|
How so?
1
Nov 19, 2024, 7:26 AM
|
|
NIL deals will be on top of revenue sharing as I understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Titan [46636]
TigerPulse: 78%
58
Posts: 34860
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21743]
TigerPulse: 100%
53
|
Re: It should benefit Clemson, unless Dabo finds a reason not to embrace it.***
Nov 19, 2024, 10:55 AM
|
|
Troll on troll!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [751]
TigerPulse: 93%
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3576]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [1064]
TigerPulse: 80%
25
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
1
Nov 19, 2024, 8:10 AM
[ in reply to Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting ] |
|
You guys don't understand the revenue sharing settlement at all. It won't help Clemson at all, and might hurt it even further.
First, it has 0 impact on NIL. The NCAA cannot do anything about NIL after Kavanaugh's opinion. Players will continue to hire agents and find the most lucrative NIL deals. Those will not be impacted at all by the settlement. The only hope at curbing NIL is that boosters will tire of spending millions for no results and will lower the current enormous deals (but hope springs eternal for fans, so I think that's unlikely).
Second, it sounds like they haven't decided how revenue sharing will work. The revenue sharing is based off of media deals, which are negotiated at the conference level. It's possible they will dole out revenue sharing payments based on their conference deals. If that's the case, the Big Ten and SEC players will receive higher revenue sharing money than ACC and Big 12 players. That will be even more incentive for players to not join those poorer conferences.
I don't see any way it benefits Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3204]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
That sounds right except for 2 caveats
Nov 19, 2024, 9:53 AM
|
|
1. The House vs NCAA case settlement has a clause that says that the NCAA can "review" NIL deals of $600 or more to make sure they are "legit". Since the NCAA is disingenuously calling revenue sharing "NIL", it's not clear if they're trying to encroach in the Tennessee caseinjunction against their interference in private NIL or not.
If they're talking about private NIL, that could delay the settlement even more because some athletes are challenging the NIL clause. It would also get an automatic appeal due to the conflict with the Tennessee case. Where that would go, no one knows for sure, but it's likely the Sherman Antitrust Act would prevail.
2. The revenue sharing is reportedly capped in the neighborhood of $20 to $22 million annually. That won't hurt Power 5 schools all that much. It could kill sports at some smaller schools.
One example - Troy, a middling program made a reported $33 million on football last year. $22 million is 2/3 of their revenue.
There's been lots of talk about private NIL being a money problem. Revenue sharing may actually end up being a bigger problem for non P4 conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6299]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
Nov 19, 2024, 7:45 AM
|
|
Won't it depend on how each university decides to use it? I was under the impression the cash could be spread out among student athletes however each university sees fit so if one uses it all on football and another gives half of it to other sports it will be a net negative to the latter. But perhaps I'm mistaken as I'll admit to not paying that much attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9781]
TigerPulse: 55%
44
Posts: 12860
Joined: 2006
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
Nov 19, 2024, 9:28 AM
|
|
How long do you think it would take the first lawsuit to be filed if a school put all the revenue sharing into football? Come on NC, share means share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3204]
TigerPulse: 75%
34
|
Actually, "share" means "share with the schools"
Nov 19, 2024, 11:07 AM
|
|
The revenue sharing proposed in the House case is exactly that.
Each school gets to distribute the money internally as they see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Beast [6379]
TigerPulse: 100%
40
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
Nov 19, 2024, 8:25 AM
|
|
I hope so, but why do you think that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4136]
TigerPulse: 95%
36
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
Nov 19, 2024, 11:51 AM
|
|
Well I was simply saying that because of our increased success this year.
Cade showing what he can do
Having good receivers and O line, or at least progressing in the right direction
And then the defense showing off how Clemson defense should be played.
Mainly Cade Klubnik and the defense. There will be loads of guys who want to play with a QB like that, and a defense like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3576]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
Re: Ive got to imagine recruiting
3
Nov 19, 2024, 11:42 AM
|
|
Per Dabo’s prior comments, the program will use rev share to the maximum allowable under the House Settlement. If I have kept up with developments, this means Clemson will devote as much rev share as any other power conferences. The key thing will be how Dabo decides to allocate the funds. Here’s where I wish Neff would step up and hire a veteran NFL guy as a true general manager responsible for administration of revenue share. Dabo needs to refocus on coaching the guys on the roster and allow an experienced general manager to handle roster management (including transfer portal prospects). Love or hate it, but the sport is professionalized. I don’t think Clemson plans to step down to the FCS level, so it’s past time to manage the roster professionally. Otherwise, the team will eventually start looking like an FCS team playing in a D1 conference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 2480
|
|
|
|
50
