Please forgive a sober attempt to understand how sustainable our awesome run is … BUT … “vision” reportedly got us here, and it will take the same, to at least, hold a seat at the table of affluence.
Delighted with OM foresight (administration, boosters, LK, et al) in our seeming leadership/ winning in “early innings” of the NIL/ transfer portal era … exceptional vision!
The Ripee article was hugely insightful for how we got here. To summarize my read, a few bright attorneys, aided by loyal boosters, saw the disruptive impact of NIL/transfer portal and “organized” ahead of everyone else, including lobbying MS statutes permitting University cooperation with an NIL Collective.
Now that CFB certifiably behaves like any free enterprise, when has “business” ever entitled “well organized first movers” to sustainable, long term success without patent protection or a business model that provides high barrier to entry (usually associated with startup cost)?
If the path to competitive CFB is an “aligned”, “well organized “ institution with accomplished “professional management “ , one could speculate on any number of candidates- Phil Knight, Michigan, Notre Dame, Harvard - capable of the “startup costs”. The prospect list might start with those with names on campus buildings and an ego to seek winning in college sports. Most of these highly successful people had no interest in jeopardizing their professional success with some needless NCAA allegation - an allegation that largely can’t happen in today’s environment. How did we get billionaire professional sports franchise owners today ?
Just speculating, and claiming no insight.
I like Kiffin’s description of OM resembling the Green Bay Packers - owned by the fans! OM should pull for some union, organization,legislation that ultimately controls the madness before the mad control CFB - which seems imminent tomorrow.
As I see it , this period of lawnessness (1-3 years) is an opportunity to build the Ole Miss brand in college athletics like never in its history. Thereafter- most college teams will perform like NFL, MLB, NBA , S&P 500 … great years and years of less significance.
Do I see this wrong?
Delighted with OM foresight (administration, boosters, LK, et al) in our seeming leadership/ winning in “early innings” of the NIL/ transfer portal era … exceptional vision!
The Ripee article was hugely insightful for how we got here. To summarize my read, a few bright attorneys, aided by loyal boosters, saw the disruptive impact of NIL/transfer portal and “organized” ahead of everyone else, including lobbying MS statutes permitting University cooperation with an NIL Collective.
Now that CFB certifiably behaves like any free enterprise, when has “business” ever entitled “well organized first movers” to sustainable, long term success without patent protection or a business model that provides high barrier to entry (usually associated with startup cost)?
If the path to competitive CFB is an “aligned”, “well organized “ institution with accomplished “professional management “ , one could speculate on any number of candidates- Phil Knight, Michigan, Notre Dame, Harvard - capable of the “startup costs”. The prospect list might start with those with names on campus buildings and an ego to seek winning in college sports. Most of these highly successful people had no interest in jeopardizing their professional success with some needless NCAA allegation - an allegation that largely can’t happen in today’s environment. How did we get billionaire professional sports franchise owners today ?
Just speculating, and claiming no insight.
I like Kiffin’s description of OM resembling the Green Bay Packers - owned by the fans! OM should pull for some union, organization,legislation that ultimately controls the madness before the mad control CFB - which seems imminent tomorrow.
As I see it , this period of lawnessness (1-3 years) is an opportunity to build the Ole Miss brand in college athletics like never in its history. Thereafter- most college teams will perform like NFL, MLB, NBA , S&P 500 … great years and years of less significance.
Do I see this wrong?
