What kind of BS is this? I doubt any of these schools are struggling for NIL money to begin with. They don’t even have to win. 1 Mil guaranteed for playing
8 schools receive invite to NIL tournament. Will receive $1MM each towards NIL
- Thread starter UKwootwoot
- Start date
Would love to get involved with this in the future.
Kentucky needs to use it's muscle to have both the Champion's Classic game against Duke/Kansas/MSU and the CBS Sport's Classic with UNC/Ohio State/UCLA declared NIL Fund games, with a cut of the ticket receipts split as NIL loot. There is nothing "magic" about this new tournament. You could force NIL money as part of ANY tournament.
We should have been headlining this event from the start.
Agreed. But I'm not sure how much muscle we actually have at this point.
A few quick thoughts:
-How did they choose those specific schools? Weird mix.
-Not sure I love the idea of programs getting money to dole out from a tournament.
-In spite of the above… can we get on the list?
-How did they choose those specific schools? Weird mix.
-Not sure I love the idea of programs getting money to dole out from a tournament.
-In spite of the above… can we get on the list?
Which schools are there? Sorry again; can't read twitter feeds from work.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Alabama, Houston, Notre Dame, Oregon, Rutgers, San Diego State, and Texas A&M
They could’ve atleast included Auburn to get a blue blood in there.
I'm sure Oregon needs NIL $ with Nike there
From the article..."The eighth and final school for the 2024 event will emerge from a small group that is still being deliberated."
Also the Players Era Festival tournament will be moving to 16 teams in 2025.
2 Texas schools, 2 SEC schools, but NIL or not, the 8th school will be informational. UK needs to hold its own NIL tourney then. Why share the wealth when you dont have too.It's only BS because we weren't invited
Would love to see UK start rotating Maui, Battle 4 Atlantis, PKI (Phil Knight Invitational) and this NIL tournament ASAP.
I figured it was good for at least one triggered reader.
I guess I don't understand nil. I thought the players negotiated this with businesses for use of their name, image, and likeness. How does giving money to schools for nil fall under this scenario. Seems like it's in violation any time the school is involved in the accumulation and distribution of nil funds. What am I missing?
Sounds like the NIL money goes to the players after they do various requirements outside of the games. Not sure how just paying the school would work being as it's against the rules and all. and The players would and should demand that pie be split amongst the players. I know I'd be pissed If I played in that tournament and none of the NIL money came to me.
The whole situation with NIL was ridiculous enough but this is just getting even dumber.
It's time the champions classic becomes a weekend tournament. Winner gets a cool million added to their NIL and the winner of the losers game gets 500k.
We need to get out of these classic one offs and into these tournaments each year. Still neutral court but get 3 games against power 6 teams potentially n 3 days.
Yeah, further proof that Cal had become a moron. He wasn't even worried about NIL at UK. Get your 5 stars, fail the champions classic, and go lose 10+ games. The moron way.
Something like this needs to have a rule to not have the same schools in it in back to back years. But yes , UK should agree to be the final spot this year so we can get Osobor lol
If panzy Mitch Barnhart would just merge the K fund with the NIL collective like so many other programs do (their version of the K fund) then we would be able to be the best in basketball and compete in football.
1) this should definitely not be allowed because it has a performance based component to the nil. That's one of the only restrictions on nil.
2) if it's some gray area where it isn't expressly disallowed and this is actually going forward (which appears to be the case) Mitch should have major questions. We should absolutely be in this no question. It's pathetic we aren't.
2) if it's some gray area where it isn't expressly disallowed and this is actually going forward (which appears to be the case) Mitch should have major questions. We should absolutely be in this no question. It's pathetic we aren't.
