What do we think about this?

[Saint3333]

I get it. But it's refreshing to only care about one score for those three hours.

[bcoach]

Just for the record, the players sued and the courts agreed. The schools did not start this.

Unintended consequences of a reasonable ruling and the schools with a $$$ advantage pushed their agenda into the realm where we are today. They may not have started it, but they did poor gasoline on it without regard to the consequences.

"They" didn't do anything. The NCAA caused all of this by not having a plan in place and making copious profits off the backs of unpaid labor. Now the labor is getting paid, and they don't like it.

"off the backs of unpaid labor"? really? You said that?

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

[BambooRdApp]

I am a "crack-berry" addict (using old school blackberry reference)..so, yes, these 3 hours allow me to disconnect....which is good for my rehabilitation

[AppStFan1]

I get it. But it's refreshing to only care about one score for those three hours.

I understand that as well. I do think the people who run the video board should post other scores regularly so we know. I would say at least post Sun Belt scores and those from our state.

[MrCraig]

Unintended consequences of a reasonable ruling and the schools with a $$$ advantage pushed their agenda into the realm where we are today. They may not have started it, but they did poor gasoline on it without regard to the consequences.

"They" didn't do anything. The NCAA caused all of this by not having a plan in place and making copious profits off the backs of unpaid labor. Now the labor is getting paid, and they don't like it.

"off the backs of unpaid labor"? really? You said that?

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

[Pikapp79]

If NIL is part of tickets then I will stop buying. Season ticket holder for close to 30 years and would stop day one.

[appgrad95&97]

"They" didn't do anything. The NCAA caused all of this by not having a plan in place and making copious profits off the backs of unpaid labor. Now the labor is getting paid, and they don't like it.

"off the backs of unpaid labor"? really? You said that?

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

[MrCraig]

"off the backs of unpaid labor"? really? You said that?

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

[appgrad95&97]

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

Not to be a smart ass, but hundreds of thousands of dollars from the university.

[704App]

What else would you call it? Before NCAA v. Alston, American Olympians who were also on scholarship were not allowed to accept money from the USOC for medals they won. Athletes weren't allowed to work other jobs while on scholarship. How is saying "your scholarship is pay for your work" any different than indentured servitude?

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

[appgrad95&97]

If you keep this up I am going to think you are serious.

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

[704App]

I am 100% serious. Is our country not based on a capitalist economy? Not allowing people to make money off their talent and name is quite literally antithetical to the American way. Hence why the Supreme Court allowed NIL to come into existence.
Students on academic scholarships are allowed to work jobs. Many of them even work for the college where they attend, thus are being paid by the school. Why should athletes be any different? ESPECIALLY considering the work they do brings in lots of money for the school.

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

[AppSt94]

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

[appgrad95&97]

The Court viewed NIL for Olivia Dunne. A kid who can make money on social media should be allowed to. If a sweatpants company wants to put her or him in commercials, fine. None of that money comes from a university. Kids get paid, literally, for their name, image, and likeness. That's different from being paid to play, let alone being paid by the university.

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

And I have absolutely no problem with her making all the money she does or can. But I don't think LSU paid her.

[704App]

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

And I have absolutely no problem with her making all the money she does or can. But I don't think LSU paid her.

LSU isn't paying her, but LSU is getting way more exposure form her than they are from Nerdy Joe.

That was the question. What's the difference between the two? Why does the famous athlete get more NIL money than the academic?

It's not hard -- because that's how marketing works. The bigger the reach, the bigger the dollar amount.

[704App]

So what's the difference between an athlete who gets a scholarship and is paid to play ball, and a kid on academic scholarship who gets paid to work in the cafeteria or the writing lab?

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

And then LSU can contact him when he's rich and swimming in piles of cash and ask for a hefty donation..

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question on what's the difference between the two and the reason why one person gets more money than the other.

It's not to say Nerdy Joe doesn't hold ANY value. He just doesn't hold as much value.

[appgrad95&97]

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

And I have absolutely no problem with her making all the money she does or can. But I don't think LSU paid her.

LSU isn't paying her, but LSU is getting way more exposure form her than they are from Nerdy Joe.

That was the question. What's the difference between the two? Why does the famous athlete get more NIL money than the academic?

It's not hard -- because that's how marketing works. The bigger the reach, the bigger the dollar amount.

I think we 100% agree. The question is who's paying. Give Dunne whatever she's worth. She brings in engagement to society media and probably sells a lot of athletic wear. I'm just saying there's a difference between Instagram or the Panthers and LSU. Obviously she was or is good for the university. And, I hope, she gets what she's worth. Hell, I'm not sure Taylor Swift went to college and she seems to be doing alright. I want people to get paid what they are worth. My only point is that NIL wasn't about universities paying kids to play.

[AppSt94]

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

And then LSU can contact him when he's rich and swimming in piles of cash and ask for a hefty donation..

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question on what's the difference between the two and the reason why one person gets more money than the other.

I understood what you were saying. There is no difference. Olivia Dunne has endorsement deals because she has a large following on social media. I don’t know what she endorses outside of Fabletics so I can’t speak to her complete NIL deal. But she isn’t representing LSU in her Fabletics deal. She is making money off of her own marketability, which is what NIL was supposed to do.

[appgrad95&97]

In the case of Dunne, hundreds (if not thousands -- don't know enough about her) of hours of marketing material for LSU, a significant following, and a large reach to college aged young adults.

Nerdy Joe in the chemistry lab may have a 4.0 and a 1600 SAT, but he doesn't provide any of the above.

That doesn't mean one is better than the other. One just provides more marketing value than the other.

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

And then LSU can contact him when he's rich and swimming in piles of cash and ask for a hefty donation..

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question on what's the difference between the two and the reason why one person gets more money than the other.

It's not to say Nerdy Joe doesn't hold ANY value. He just doesn't hold as much value.

This is where you are wrong. I am pretty sure that Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet (all Nerdy Joes) are the richest men in America--the list goes on-- have some value. T Boone Pickens gave Oklahoma State a Billion dollars. Don't kid yourself, kids should make what they make. But real money is in the Nerdy Joes.

[704App]

Harvard's endowment is over 50 billion dollars, Nerdy Joe might have some value.

He has some, sure! But he doesn't have the impact Livvy Dunne with over 15 million follows on social media platforms..

Nerdy Joe's value is to other Nerdy Joes. Livvy Dunnes value is to everyone across the world. And, like I said, it's not to say one is better than the other. Just the reality of it.

Sure, but Joey is likely to make 10x that endorsement when he creates an App.

And then LSU can contact him when he's rich and swimming in piles of cash and ask for a hefty donation..

Perhaps I misunderstood the initial question on what's the difference between the two and the reason why one person gets more money than the other.

It's not to say Nerdy Joe doesn't hold ANY value. He just doesn't hold as much value.

This is where you are wrong. I am pretty sure that Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffet (all Nerdy Joes) are the richest men in America--the list goes on-- have some value. T Boone Pickens gave Oklahoma State a Billion dollars. Don't kid yourself, kids should make what they make. But real money is in the Nerdy Joes.

Agreed -- and I already commented on that.

The Nerdy Joe can become wealthy as well. And when that happens LSU can reach out to them and try to collaborate.

But, in this scenario, Nerdy Joe is not wealthy, famous, or have any kind of following, so no, he does not hold near the value at this point in time than Dunne holds. And this not close. I don't see how this is arguable.

Again, Nerdy Joe still holds value, just not as much RIGHT NOW. Who knows what the future value holds so you keep that relationship. But the question was about right now -- not future.