SchizoAg said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

While NIL will be big until regulation eventually occurs, I think selling the development and culture will be a selling point for some players also

---

FYI significant NIL regulation went into effect over the summer. Every deal over $600 has to now be reviewed (by Deloitte) for fair market value to ensure it isn't pay for play.

---

I thought that all fell apart when schools refused to sign on to it I thought tech was the lead in killing it

---

It definitely should be, it's a stupid idea. The obvious flaw is that Deloitte is obviously going to rate the "fair market value" of payments at blueblood programs with huge fanbases higher than at "upstart" programs. Thus entrenching the status quo.

With regard to transfers and the rebuilding process: Clearly you have to strike while the iron is hot and get the best possible players via the transfer portal, but is there a conflict between that and being loyal to your existing players (backups) who want a chance to grow into future superstars?

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

While NIL will be big until regulation eventually occurs, I think selling the development and culture will be a selling point for some players also

---

FYI significant NIL regulation went into effect over the summer. Every deal over $600 has to now be reviewed (by Deloitte) for fair market value to ensure it isn't pay for play.

---

I thought that all fell apart when schools refused to sign on to it I thought tech was the lead in killing it

---

It definitely should be, it's a stupid idea. The obvious flaw is that Deloitte is obviously going to rate the "fair market value" of payments at blueblood programs with huge fanbases higher than at "upstart" programs. Thus entrenching the status quo.

With regard to transfers and the rebuilding process: Clearly you have to strike while the iron is hot and get the best possible players via the transfer portal, but is there a conflict between that and being loyal to your existing players (backups) who want a chance to grow into future superstars?

---

You either have someone reviewing the deals or you have pay for play dressed up as NIL.

If you look at the factors they are using, it is pretty comprehensive. Although, I think the build in an assumption that businesses are valuing player appropriately. Yes, larger schools with larger fan bases are likely going to have greater potential, but some single big donor writing a fat NIL check for a smaller school to buy a team isn't exactly NIL.

As for attempting to suppress FMV, given the metrics are based on current college and pro athlete endorsement deals, it should grow in comparison with pro endorsement deals. Also, since a deal with something like Coca-Cola is getting the assumption of FMV, those deal are going to continue to push valuations up.

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

As for attempting to suppress FMV, given the metrics are based on current college and pro athlete endorsement deals, it should grow in comparison with pro endorsement deals. Also, since a deal with something like Coca-Cola is getting the assumption of FMV, those deal are going to continue to push valuations up.

---

themissinglink said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

As for attempting to suppress FMV, given the metrics are based on current college and pro athlete endorsement deals, it should grow in comparison with pro endorsement deals. Also, since a deal with something like Coca-Cola is getting the assumption of FMV, those deal are going to continue to push valuations up.

---

The suppressing FMV has more to do with the revenue share rather than endorsement deals, but why does some Deloitte consultant need to review every endorsement deal to ensure it is FMV? Who is harmed by someone agreeing to pay an athlete more than FMV for an endorsement? The libertarian in me flares up when I see the current system.

Why can't 2 parties come to an arrangement for an athlete to participate in a certain sport at a certain school?

I think the answer is many of these schools have bloated AD budgets and schools trying to pay athletes a true-FMV would require substantial cost cutting, specifically of administrative positions. Take A&M for instance. We have a >$200 million athletic budget but only have a budget to pay the most important ambassadors ~$20 million.

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

themissinglink said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

As for attempting to suppress FMV, given the metrics are based on current college and pro athlete endorsement deals, it should grow in comparison with pro endorsement deals. Also, since a deal with something like Coca-Cola is getting the assumption of FMV, those deal are going to continue to push valuations up.

---

The suppressing FMV has more to do with the revenue share rather than endorsement deals, but why does some Deloitte consultant need to review every endorsement deal to ensure it is FMV? Who is harmed by someone agreeing to pay an athlete more than FMV for an endorsement? The libertarian in me flares up when I see the current system.

Why can't 2 parties come to an arrangement for an athlete to participate in a certain sport at a certain school?

I think the answer is many of these schools have bloated AD budgets and schools trying to pay athletes a true-FMV would require substantial cost cutting, specifically of administrative positions. Take A&M for instance. We have a >$200 million athletic budget but only have a budget to pay the most important ambassadors ~$20 million.

---

It's weird. Pro sports have salary caps and salary cap circumvention rules. It is almost like the players have agreed in their collective bargaining agreements to avoid unlimited pay for play for the good of the sport overall.

The major pro sports have already been through the unlimited pay for play era and decided it wasn't good.

---

?SchizoAg said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

SchizoAg said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

While NIL will be big until regulation eventually occurs, I think selling the development and culture will be a selling point for some players also

---

FYI significant NIL regulation went into effect over the summer. Every deal over $600 has to now be reviewed (by Deloitte) for fair market value to ensure it isn't pay for play.

---

I thought that all fell apart when schools refused to sign on to it I thought tech was the lead in killing it

---

It definitely should be, it's a stupid idea. The obvious flaw is that Deloitte is obviously going to rate the "fair market value" of payments at blueblood programs with huge fanbases higher than at "upstart" programs. Thus entrenching the status quo.

With regard to transfers and the rebuilding process: Clearly you have to strike while the iron is hot and get the best possible players via the transfer portal, but is there a conflict between that and being loyal to your existing players (backups) who want a chance to grow into future superstars?

---

You either have someone reviewing the deals or you have pay for play dressed up as NIL.

If you look at the factors they are using, it is pretty comprehensive. Although, I think the build in an assumption that businesses are valuing player appropriately. Yes, larger schools with larger fan bases are likely going to have greater potential, but some single big donor writing a fat NIL check for a smaller school to buy a team isn't exactly NIL.

As for attempting to suppress FMV, given the metrics are based on current college and pro athlete endorsement deals, it should grow in comparison with pro endorsement deals. Also, since a deal with something like Coca-Cola is getting the assumption of FMV, those deal are going to continue to push valuations up.

---

It is pay-for-play, full stop. All else is pretense, or self-delusion. You won't solve any problem by lying about it.

---

FluAggie said:

---

Believe me...I'm still enjoying every second of this but I saw ESPN's way to early rankings and because we lose so much we were ranked 10th (which seems fair). Any projections on what the rotation is likely to look like next year based on what we know right now?


Obviously Stowers is a National Player of the Year candidate and she is going to be the main offensive weapon. She will never leave the court and play all-around.

I'm assuming that Kirra Musgrove steps in at setter (very high national recruit).

Addi Applegate was awesome and will be a fixture in the back row.

I'm assuming Megan Fitch basically steps in to the Hellmuth role.

Is Taryn Morris the new OPP?

Is Gabi Rodriguez (very highly ranked national recruit) an immediate factor in the back row?

Did we sign anyone else who will be a major impact player their freshman year?

I have no clue what we have in the middle next year...thoughts? Lolufe Adedeji?

How big of a factor will the portal be for this team? I imagine EVERY player who enters would love to hear from Texas A&M right now.

---

AggieCenturyTree said:

---

Please explain "opposite" - don't understand what that is.

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

I would say opposite is the only position I would , if any, add but I am not the staff

We have four middles. And while they aren't to the level of our duo last year I don't think any of the ones in the portal would be.

I think the ones we got work for what he likely wants for the system he will use based upon the personal we have.

If can see if we add no one else running a 6-2 to start the season to get players some needed court time and see what gel as a group.

We knew what we had in the spring last year maybe not how Stowers would be coming off a year of not playing.

I don't know if we know who will be on the court next fall yet with exception of Stowers but I like the fact that other than Ring everyone new has multiple years

---

warrington74 said:

---

Surprising ifenna. defense was actually pretty darn good, especially for a middle

---