Is Hoiberg the coach of this team next year?

[AuroranHusker]

On 12/9/2023 at 5:23 PM, hhcmatt said:

Maybe have some chill so that their uber-children pick DONU

 

That's a valid point. it is apparent that NU needs a lot of the past (and current) greats to be pumping out some future NU greats, those 90s teams ought to cashing in about now -- Caleb Benning is considered by some to be the top football recruit in the state, but now we need more from the basketball (thank you Shavon Shields!!), baseball, etc. GBR

 

 

[HB]

9 hours ago, Crush78 said:

There is a baseline volleyball nil. Which, garanted pretty much no one else has. But she didn't get much if any beyond that.

Tell that to Lexi Rodriguez 

[Chuck Taylor]

On 12/6/2023 at 10:17 PM, huskerbill85 said:

I think it has to be asked. Post your predictions.

Bump

[hhctony]

On 12/8/2023 at 4:53 PM, cipsucks said:

Don't recognize the player or the uniform.  The gym looks like  Hordville, but I don't remember windows in that gym. All I know the acoustics were horrible and that place was loud. The only other possibilities are Marquette, Bradshaw and the piece of crap gym in Monroe.  By the looks of the people in the stands, I'm guessing this had to be in the late 60's to very early 70's.  I believe it was 1972, Hampton got new uniforms which had the number inside a circle with a vertical stripe running through it. Did the Baltimore Bullets have that jersey? Anyway, thanks for the walk down memory lane!

 

Truly amazing uniforms. We were STILL wearing these in junior high in 1989. Eickhoff wouldn't get rid of them. 

[Norm Peterson]

11 hours ago, Crush78 said:

3 things

 

1. NIL is specifically stated that it cannot come directly from the school, so I'm  not sure can restrict logo wearing

2. Batenhorst was a bench player to start the season, probably doesn't have much of an NIL deal

3. She's like 21 and that's her boyfriend, so of course she's wearing his gear. 

 

Honestly, I'm kinda stunned by this response. In my mind, this isn't even debatable.

 

It's such a universally accepted and enforced thing in sports, in marketing, in sponsorships.

 

If you're a golfer like Jordan Spieth, for example, and you're sponsored by Under Armour, you're going to be wearing their stuff at any public appearance. You're not going to put on a Travis Matthew shirt for some charity event or paid public appearance. It's in his contract. It would be in yours, too. IF you were a golfer like Jordan Spieth.

 

It's called an "Exclusivity Clause." Exceptions are sometimes built into the contract, such as Tiger Woods not having to drive a Buick. But, by and large ...

 

"In the world of sports endorsements, exclusivity clauses legally restrict athletes from promoting or using similar products from another brand. The idea is that a brand does not want to pay an athlete money and then see them wearing a competing brand’s shoes. Put simply, this is the clause that prohibits James Harden (Adidas athlete) from wearing Nike basketball shoes on the court, in public, or on social media."

 

Explaining Exclusivity Clauses in Athlete Endorsement Contracts — The CG Sports Company

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

14 hours ago, No Place Like the Vault said:

Went to the game tonight,  my first of the season.  Maybe I  should keep going 

 

Yes, you should.

[Chuck Taylor]

A thoughtful title to this thread. MSU board has one called "Tom's team sucks":

 

https://247sports.com/college/michigan-state/board/93/Contents/toms-team-sucks-222803661/?page=1

[Crush78]

36 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Honestly, I'm kinda stunned by this response. In my mind, this isn't even debatable.

 

It's such a universally accepted and enforced thing in sports, in marketing, in sponsorships.

 

If you're a golfer like Jordan Spieth, for example, and you're sponsored by Under Armour, you're going to be wearing their stuff at any public appearance. You're not going to put on a Travis Matthew shirt for some charity event or paid public appearance. It's in his contract. It would be in yours, too. IF you were a golfer like Jordan Spieth.

 

It's called an "Exclusivity Clause." Exceptions are sometimes built into the contract, such as Tiger Woods not having to drive a Buick. But, by and large ...

 

"In the world of sports endorsements, exclusivity clauses legally restrict athletes from promoting or using similar products from another brand. The idea is that a brand does not want to pay an athlete money and then see them wearing a competing brand’s shoes. Put simply, this is the clause that prohibits James Harden (Adidas athlete) from wearing Nike basketball shoes on the court, in public, or on social media."

 

Explaining Exclusivity Clauses in Athlete Endorsement Contracts — The CG Sports Company

 

 

I guess somebody should tell Matt Davidson to include exclusivity clauses in the 1890 collective contracts. 

 

Also, she was attending as a fan, not getting paid for a public appearance, so who cares.

[Norm Peterson]

Just now, Crush78 said:

Also, she was attending as a fan, not getting paid for a public appearance, so who cares.

 

Doesn't matter. We have a university-wide brand. She represents that brand anywhere she appears publicly.

 

If she wants the NIL money, she accepts certain responsibilities. Not promoting a competing brand is one of those responsibilities.

 

This is not that hard.

[Crush78]

16 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Doesn't matter. We have a university-wide brand. She represents that brand anywhere she appears publicly.

 

If she wants the NIL money, she accepts certain responsibilities. Not promoting a competing brand is one of those responsibilities.

 

This is not that hard.

If that responsibility is laid out in a contract, sure. 

 

But if not, she is free to wear whatever she feels like.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Just now, Crush78 said:

If that responsibility is laid out in a contract, sure. 

 

But if not, she is free to wear whatever she feels like.

 

And that's why I said, further upthread, nobody should donate to 1890 unless and until they put such a clause into their contracts.

 

It's inexcusable. You're paying to help build a brand and one of the people you're paying is doing more to dissipate your brand than build it.

[Dead Dog Alley]

42 minutes ago, Chuck Taylor said:

A thoughtful title to this thread. MSU board has one called "Tom's team sucks":

 

https://247sports.com/college/michigan-state/board/93/Contents/toms-team-sucks-222803661/?page=1

 

If you've been to 25 straight tournaments, woe be upon you when you finally miss one.

 

Which they won't, they'll get in at 16-15 if it comes to that.

[Crush78]

Just now, Norm Peterson said:

 

And that's why I said, further upthread, nobody should donate to 1890 unless and until they put such a clause into their contracts.

 

It's inexcusable. You're paying to help build a brand and one of the people you're paying is doing more to dissipate your brand than build it.

Dissipate the brand? Wearing a blue t shirt is dissipating the brand? You're kidding right? It's not like it said F### the Huskers on it or something

[Bugeaters1]

51 minutes ago, Chuck Taylor said:

A thoughtful title to this thread. MSU board has one called "Tom's team sucks":

 

https://247sports.com/college/michigan-state/board/93/Contents/toms-team-sucks-222803661/?page=1

I was over there last night. and that board was blowing up.

[hskr4life]

14 minutes ago, Crush78 said:

Dissipate the brand? Wearing a blue t shirt is dissipating the brand? You're kidding right? It's not like it said F### the Huskers on it or something

 

It's all about what is written in the contract, but it's not super uncommon or something that is totally out there to not wear other teams gear.  When I worked for a large university, we had stipulations on what our kids could wear when it came to wearing other teams gear to work and these were just ordinary students.

 

Volleyball is huge here and because it's so huge there is more spotlight on you.  It also probably doesn't help that this was a Nebraska event.  It wasn't like it was a random game in Omaha against UC Upstate.  It was a Nebraska event.  It'd be like a Texas volleyball player wearing Oklahoma gear to an OU/Texas game.

 

With all that being said, this is a big nothing if there's nothing to prohibit it and wearing anything CU should be banned just because it's CU and no one likes them.

[Huskerpapa]

1 hour ago, Bugeaters1 said:

I was over there last night. and that board was blowing up.

Sort of like ours did post-Minnesota

[Norm Peterson]

2 hours ago, Crush78 said:

Dissipate the brand? Wearing a blue t shirt is dissipating the brand? You're kidding right? It's not like it said F### the Huskers on it or something

 

No, it probably said F### Creighton.

 

But srsly, no, I'm not kidding. You clearly have no idea how this endorsement stuff works and how exclusivity means exclusivity.

[HB]

2 hours ago, Crush78 said:

I guess somebody should tell Matt Davidson to include exclusivity clauses in the 1890 collective contracts. 

 

Also, she was attending as a fan, not getting paid for a public appearance, so who cares.

How do you know they're not?

[HB]

2 hours ago, Crush78 said:

Dissipate the brand? Wearing a blue t shirt is dissipating the brand? You're kidding right? It's not like it said F### the Huskers on it or something

 

It wasn't just the color blue.  It actually had Jay stuff on it.   And no, we're not kidding.  

[Art Vandalay]

2 hours ago, Crush78 said:

Dissipate the brand? Wearing a blue t shirt is dissipating the brand? You're kidding right? It's not like it said F### the Huskers on it or something

Might as well have. I’ll go farther. If I am Trev I would pull the tickets, to all sports, of those Nebraska students who wore Creighton gear to the game and sat front row. #$#$ them

Edited December 11, 2023 by Art Vandalay

[Norm Peterson]

2 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

Might as well have. I’ll go farther. If I am Trev I would pull the tickets, to all sports, of those Nebraska students who wore Creighton gear to the game and sat front row. #$#$ them

 

Seconded.

 

Back in the days of paper tickets there was a message printed right on there the university reserves the right to cancel your ticket and kick you out for any reason. ANY reason.

[Crush78]

36 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

No, it probably said F### Creighton.

 

But srsly, no, I'm not kidding. You clearly have no idea how this endorsement stuff works and how exclusivity means exclusivity.

Endorsements are contracts and I do know how they work. If they didn't put a clause in it about exclusivity & gear, they can wear whatever. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

8 minutes ago, Crush78 said:

Endorsements are contracts and I do know how they work. If they didn't put a clause in it about exclusivity & gear, they can wear whatever. 

 

Again, that's why I said upthread that 1890 needs to have such a clause in their contracts (if they don't already.)

[Crush78]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Again, that's why I said upthread that 1890 needs to have such a clause in their contracts (if they don't already.)

Well, the problem there is 1890 isn't the University, so it's a little sticky legally to make a clause in a contract that you have to rep a different legal entities logo.

[HB]

12 minutes ago, Crush78 said:

Well, the problem there is 1890 isn't the University, so it's a little sticky legally to make a clause in a contract that you have to rep a different legal entities logo.

No, it's not.  Simple contract provision.