NIL with Prudential
- Thread starter RU206
- Start date
Boom!
This is exactly what we need, corporations to buy in
This is exactly what we need, corporations to buy in
Educating the players about how to invest and hold onto their money is a terrific idea. In the end a stupid lease for a BMW goes nowhere .
marketing expense to get in front of potential/soon-to-be millionaires
If they get the right advice that 8k can turn to 80k real quick..but idk if they will get into it like that. They might quit the team when they find out how the markets work. Lol
will part of the deal be a game vs a marquee opponent on an attractive date and time
That is weak. They will make more than that on fees and insurance product commissions. You think Bama or Ohio St would allow them to announce this? You want your name affiliated with Rutgers it should be $5mm to start. Pru has $60 billion in revenues a year. Big presence in NJ and this?
Corporations are beating down the doors, why not make it $10 million to start? Again, Rutgers is not Bama or Ohio State. Naming rights to the stadium? Sorry, SHI, your offer is not acceptable. We would rather take zero. We are waiting for J&J to offer $20 million per year thank you very much.
Interesting that a local company has stepped up.
U Georgia has reached out to all local companies to step up. in NIL endeavors,
U Georgia has reached out to all local companies to step up. in NIL endeavors,
The product is awful and its forgotten about already
want to share how to turn 8 into 80 "real quick"
and that's why more than half of the pros wind up in trouble. a lease on a bmw for a couple of years is worthless in the long run and those thinking otherwise are mindless. we've dealth with tons of nfl and nba player who would die for a decent pension or assets that they could rely on.
"Real quick" That is my fault for using that term. But it's hard to explain if you aren't familiar with the way stocks move. It doesn't take long for a company to rise in value. It's not based on what the company has earned or how hard they work. It's just people selling the idea of success and how many investors they can get to buy in. Like Tesla hasn't made a profit yet but Elon musk is a good salesman so Tesla flirts with a trillion dollar valuation. A good idea can create fomo and the amount of people rushing to buy a stock makes it shoot up in value. If you're able to spot a good idea before it becomes popular you can do quite well for yourself relatively quickly. For example nvda stock shot up over 200% last year and ripped another 23% just this month. Coinbase stock went up 400% last year.
But no if you get AAPL, Google, Tesla, gm, those are like safe portfolio assets. Because with the chance for more gains comes the chance for big losses as well. So many stocks and a lot of them are scammers. Lol so like I said they probably will not be getting that deep into it.
Last edited:
Right now everyone's looking at PayPal stock, it lost 20% last year but they've been making more money than the previous year for like a decade and they just added crypto currency. Like coinbase which shot up 400% last year. So obviously the market likes the idea. Ive also seem a couple talking heads referencing it. PayPal stock may be one you'd want to look into.
How are you arriving at that percentage? Is the aggregate social media following of the female players 10% of the aggregate social media following of the male players?
I agree with you . Your logic is sound.
But the idea with NIL is to pay for the best pro athletes the school/organization can buy.
Rutgers: "Hey we found a clever way to pay players that, who knows, may pay off even more in the future!"
This Board: "This is terrible! Not enough! ARGH"
This Board: "This is terrible! Not enough! ARGH"
Should be closer to 0%,was trying not to offend.
I arrived at that number using a model I created. Don't want to get too crazy with formulas but basically the women's players owe the school money. Reverse NIL.
Rutgers women's basketball is a literal cash bonfire
NIL is between the players and Prudential. The school can mediate or organize, but pays nothing to anybody, male or female. What anybody owes the school is irrelevant here.
Prudential will have had someone look at potential ROI on their money and, since the agreement with the players is to do promotion via social media, one would think the only factor that matters to Prudential is how large an audience the players (male or female) can reach via their social media interactions.
So if, for some reason, you want to build a case about a different Prudential NIL amount between male/female athletes , you need to show what the relative social media reach is for all the participants.
Dave - to be fair, only a couple of people are being silly enough to put a negative spin on this. Of course, it's fantastic. In an ideal world, this is EXACTLY how NIL should work.
When you start a post with "not trying to offend" you probably are. 100% there's value from the company's perspective and that's all that matters.
I should be fair, but at the same time, it just amuses me that you could basically say, Rutgers got to the Final Four on this page and someone would be like "FIRE PIKES THEY DIDN"T WIN IT ALL BECAUSE PRUDENTIAL DIDN'T PAY ENOUGH"
I'm more making myself chuckle than anything.
Pretty sure he was being purposely disingenuous (can one be unintentionally disingenuous?) about the "not trying to offend thing".
In any event, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm extremely hard to offend. It's nearly impossible for people who aren't close friends or family (because why would I care what they think)?
So to be clear, I wasn't addressing the offensiveness or inoffensiveness of his post. I just prefer that accuracy, logic, and facts support people's positions, rather than agenda or bias or whatever else.
In fairness - Pru’s motivation for doing this is about connection to NJ. It’s a feel good thing to do that they hope will help make those observing it associate Prudential as NJ’s investment management firm. People who might consider investing assets with them have daughters. Not giving to the ladies teams could do more harm than good in rubbing people the wrong way. So they kind of have to support both - title IX not withstanding.
Last edited:
Huh? I’m not following your point. The whole premise of NIL is that the sponsor (Prudential in this case) is paying to use Rutgers athletes names and images for advertising, marketing or other purposes. Capitalism dictates that Pru should be able to negotiate whatever arrangements they want. If they choose specific players to feature in advertisements (for example) those players should absolutely get more money for their time. In this case - based on what you’d imagine Pru seeks to get out of it - not paying the female players wouldn’t figure to be a good strategic move. But certainly there are other situations where this may not be the case.
That's true (well, not so much the Socialism part which I know you added sarcastically).
Your point should prompt people to think more deeply about why there's value in not always differentiating between players and giving the same thing to all players. People driven by knowledge and logic and truth, instead of ideology, should suspect there's a lot of nuance to the question of who gets NIL funding. They should work through all the many variations and their respective potential impacts.
Sadly, it seems most people today are allergic to nuance. It's apparently preferable, and certainly waaaaay easier, to be handed a conclusion we like and then act as champions of that conclusion.
Isn’t it just about negotiation? It’s Pru’s money - they should get what they want, right? If they are simply partnering with the macro level image of RU sports there is no reason they would want exclusions of certain players or to leave out the girls team. It wouldn’t make sense and would be counter productive to the marketing plan being sought because it could have negative implications for them.
If Spalding decided to release a Rutgers branded mens basketball and wanted a picture of the players on the team on it using it for advertising - there would be no reason for funding to go to the girls players. There would be no reason to feature women’s players trying to sell a mens ball (totall made up example to illustrate the point). Spalding is under no obligation to in this example launch a female RU ball line nor should they if they don’t think it would sell as well.
Was being sarcastic - trying to point out the idea of treating men and women differently is silly. As several have said, it’s Prudential $ and they can spend as they please.