Tony looking bitter by fighting anyone who responds on Twitter. You'd figure he would know better.
Perkins to Mizzou
- Thread starter QChawks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- qcpizzasucks
Mizzou definitely worked some turnaround magic on the gridiron this past season…
Well no top 50 teams took a shot at Perkins. That should tell you something.
Many Waltons are Mizzou alumni. They had a kid play for Mizzou back in the 90's. Can't remember the name, but he's part of the Walton family (mom is a Walton) that own's the LA Rams & Denver
Many Waltons are Mizzou alum. Stan Kroenke married a Walton & their son played bball at Mizzuo in the 90's.
Right now there are two groups of power 6 schools. Those like Missouri that will pay for guys. And those like Iowa, that will end up with whomever is left and not getting any serious NIL money. It’s concerning for the sport and for Iowa as well.
Leadership? Tony? yeah he led the team to the NIT... woohoo. Notice no blue blood teams came calling. In fact, no top 50 - 100 team was willing to pay for his skillset & "leadership".
Josh Kroenke played for Mizzou and grew up in Columbia. His dad is Stan Kroenke, the pro sports mogul and his mother is Ann Walton, Sam's niece and Bud's daughter. Her sister, Nancy, is married to Bill Laurie, who played on the Memphis State team that lost to Bill Walton and UCLA in the NCAA Championship game. His younger brother, Barry, later played for Mizzou. The Lauries and the Walton sisters all grew up in the small town of Versailles, MO, north of the Lake of the Ozarks. Stan Kroenke grew up in an even smaller town, Stover, population about 450, west of Versailles.
Bill and Nancy still live in Columbia and have been huge Mizzou basketball boosters. They donated $25M for Mizzou Arena. No one knows, though it's reasonable to assume he is a benefactor of Mizzou's NIL, that is one of the top ones in the country.
On a somewhat related note, Mizzou has the 4th rated basketball recruiting class hitting campus in May and June. They are also strong contenders for 2-3 other highly rated transfers.
Why would you move to a different job that pays you more?
I don't think it was Tony's fault he was on an NIT caliber team. He is a good player.
How do you know what other teams were paying? Maybe the blue bloods offered him $350k. Again the point is people were/are pissing and moaning about what a player like Tony is worth and he's proven that his market value was 400k.
Tony arguing with fans on Twitter is a little pathetic.
Also going to a team that just went 0-18 means he isn't wanting to win lol. He got paid and good for him. He will sit good for 2 years then I hope his degree is something worthwhile.
Also going to a team that just went 0-18 means he isn't wanting to win lol. He got paid and good for him. He will sit good for 2 years then I hope his degree is something worthwhile.
Tony saying it isn’t about the $. I believe him as much as I believe the golfers who go to LIV golf and say they want to “grow the game”. Honestly majority of fans don’t blame him just don’t lie about it.
Pretty sure Kaydyn Proctor said it wasn't about the money too. Lol !
Well if he did get 400k then it was about the money.
I feel like his attitude went south after they were eliminated from the bubble.
Whats shocking is missouri having 400k to give to him.
What's amazing is that most coaches play 5 or 6 guards in a rotation and we have people on here thanking its going to be an upgrade to only have 2 on the roster.
All of this can't end soon enough for me.
Yes we all agree with you that three guards should have shared the floor more often last season. You’re not breaking any ground.
Mizzou got an anonymous 62 million dollar donor and 12 million went to NIL.
Dix and Perkins were Fran’s best backcourt by a lot. They were just paired with one of his worst frontcourts.
you mean Freeman & Sandfort? It was the lack of effort all around that was this team's problem. Not so much the front court. Krikke & PMac probably two of the worst defenders. But Freeman & Payton we're serviceable.
If a blue blood offered him close to Mizzou you don't think he'd have taken it? A chance to go far in NCAA tourney v. bottom of the barrel Mizzou?
They were serviceable. They weren’t Keegan or Kris Murray. Or Luka and Joe W. Or Uthoff or Aaron White or Tyler Cook and the list goes on. But all those guys listed above just never had the guard play to do anything in March.
Last edited:
I don't know what drove Tony to pick Mizzou. Could have been money, could have been the promise that they're ponying up millions of dollars to bring in the best recruits available and a chance at a Natty.If a blue blood offered him close to Mizzou you don't think he'd have taken it? A chance to go far in NCAA tourney v. bottom of the barrel Mizzou?
You said top 100 programs didn't offer Tony money to come play and that's just silly.
He had widdled the list down to: Arkansas, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ole Miss and Oregon. Those aren't top 100 programs?
We get it. You hate Tony. You think he wasn't good or a leader. Major program division 1 coaches disagree. I'm going to have to side with them on this one. Call me crazy.
don't hate him, hate the inconsistency in effort. And if you think he bypassed a top proven program over a bottom feeding team, you're an
He had a few bad games to end the season. If you think he didn't give effort his entire career at Iowa, you are the idiot. The kid was the toughness and fire on many teams.don't hate him, hate the inconsistency in effort. And if you think he bypassed a top proven program over a bottom feeding team, you're an
Your posts wreak of sour grapes and Boomer NIL hate.
The point is it's ridiculous to think Iowa will somehow be better at the guard spots next year.
Frans not bringing in anyone worth a shit.
I had no idea people cared about missouri sports. They probably think the same about Iowa I guess.
It's nice to know we're behind places like west Virginia and Missouri.
What a joke.
Tony had stretches of good play but 400k?? Wow talk about beer goggles basketball style …
The players are as valuable as what people are willing to pay them. The market is clearly showing that a player like Tony Perkins is worth at least $400k, and they’d be worth even more if the rules didn’t prevent them from being treated as employees.
For now….but it $ounds like Mizzou is making a change. Iowa basketball may just morph into a glorified Mac basketball program - if it hasn’t already. If we do manage to recruit an above average player, don’t be surprised if he gets poached by programs with deep pockets….
When I was a TA at Iowa, my scholarship was not taxable, but my stipend was taxable. It would not be difficult to draft rules similar for college athletes.
In my opinion:
- Allow each college athlete to opt-into employee status.
- Some athletes are not valuable enough to command more than the scholarship they are awarded. By electing non-employee status, their benefits are guaranteed and non-taxable.
- For the athletes that do elect into employee status, employment contracts can lock them into a school for a period of time, just like coaches’ contracts. If the athlete wants to leave, the school they depart to may have to pay a buy-out. If the school wants to cut the player, the player may be entitled to a buy-out. The contract could also be structured to be incentive based.
- Taxability:
- Scholarships: No
- Housing:
- No if in general student housing.
- Yes if not general student housing.
- Food: No
- Books / Tutors: No
- Professional coaching: No.
- This is rather obvious. What job on earth taxes employees for the training they receive? Pro athletes do not get taxed on the coaching they receive. I was never taxed on the tutelage I received from the partners at my firm.
- Monetary / monetary equivalent compensation beyond scholarship: Yes.
- If everything is brought above the table, we will no longer have to hypothesize what kind of under the table payments athletes are receiving. Put everyone on a level playing field. When I was a student at Iowa, I talked with football players that had stories from the NFL combine about how players from bigger schools were bragging how they got paid in college. For example, at Alabama the players were instructed to leave their car doors unlocked during practices. When they’d get back to the car, they’d have an envelope of cash in the glove compartment.
- When everything is above the table, schools / boosters will not have to resort to “creative” ways of paying athletes.
Are they worth a lot to the schools or just the athletic department? I am not being a wise guy but am asking a serious question.
They’re paid what it takes to keep someone with their resume from going to a competitor … not some grand conspiracy.
My most charitable interpretation
Athletic department directly, and indirect benefit to the school. For example, success in athletics has been shown to increase student applications. There is also indirect economic benefits to the school (visitors, merchandise purchases, etc.). A lot may also depend on how the specific school is structured. Iowa's athletic department is self-funded. While it is good that the academic wing does not have to subsidize sports, one could make a compelling argument that sports ought to help subsidize academics.
You raise a good point, which I think is more fundamental about whether it is good that college sports are so popular to begin with. The sports largely overshadow the academics, but the academics are what is supposed to provide value to society. The incentive structure for academics is unhealthy in many ways because it is a competition upwards to raise prices and exclusivity. The more a school spends, the more prestigious it can become, which can make the school more exclusive and increase tuition. Increased funding for universities does not cause tuition to go down - tuition only goes up. Schools don't become highly ranked for being able to offer low tuition for students. Students borrow more to attend school, many cannot afford to pay back student loans, and forgiving student loans presents its own can of worms best left to the off topic board.
Athletic department directly, and indirect benefit to the school. For example, success in athletics has been shown to increase student applications. There is also indirect economic benefits to the school (visitors, merchandise purchases, etc.). A lot may also depend on how the specific school is structured. Iowa's athletic department is self-funded. While it is good that the academic wing does not have to subsidize sports, one could make a compelling argument that sports ought to help subsidize academics.
You raise a good point, which I think is more fundamental about whether it is good that college sports are so popular to begin with. The sports largely overshadow the academics, but the academics are what is supposed to provide value to society. The incentive structure for academics is unhealthy in many ways because it is a competition upwards to raise prices and exclusivity. The more a school spends, the more prestigious it can become, which can make the school more exclusive and increase tuition. Increased funding for universities does not cause tuition to go down - tuition only goes up. Schools don't become highly ranked for being able to offer low tuition for students. Students borrow more to attend school, many cannot afford to pay back student loans, and forgiving student loans presents its own can of worms best left to the off topic board.
My most charitable interpretation of Tony saying it is not about the money is that he could have bailed Iowa earlier to make more money, but he liked playing for Fran and the university.
But if he means something else, I struggle to see how he is right.
But if he means something else, I struggle to see how he is right.
- I find it nearly impossible to believe that he won't get paid more at Missouri than he would at Iowa.
- He has one more year to play in college, which is his best chance to earn a lot of money playing basketball. With such a short window, his decision should be motivated by money. My reason to go to college was about the money - I saw it as an investment to obtain a better job after I was done. I think that generally ought to be the motivation for most people, with the exception that a "better" job might not necessarily mean higher compensation.
When you were at TA, were you an "employee" of the school?
I assume you were a TA within your degree of study. For example, you were getting your advanced degree in something and you were a TA for entry level classes, right?
Just wondering. I think paying players would open up a whole new can of worms - that being the loss of the tax-exempt status of the football and basketball programs.
🤷♂️
Tony Perkins can get $400,000 for one year of CBB? That's insane.
If that's true, then what are Josh Dix and Owen Freeman doing here?
If that's true, then what are Josh Dix and Owen Freeman doing here?
