• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Downside of NIL and Easy Transfer Rules

mthoopsfan

Well-known member
This is my concern, and has been for some time as transfer rules eased up and NIL was coming into the picture. The professionalization will ultimately cause some schools to drop sports, including football. Schools like EWU, where there is already pressure on sports, may not be able to continue, in my view.

"The combination of NIL, the transfer window and the increasing domination of a few athletic conferences is a game changer. If we take it all to its logical conclusion, this professionalization of college sports will slowly kill off college football and basketball programs at many universities. It will also spell the end for the other sports at those same universities, both men’s and women’s, that they subsidize."

"Put it all together, and this effectively means that after a year or two, those shining stars at smaller programs will transfer to the schools offering the most attractive NIL packages. Meanwhile, the NIL money will be dangled in front of top high school sophomores and juniors as well. In most cases, they’ll all be sold to the highest bidder.”

"I also fear that this new approach is the beginning of the end of the great college game.”

"Meanwhile, with the millions of TV dollars driving the likes of UCLA and USC to join the Big Ten, the idea of college kids in California being paid in NIL deals to fly across the country to the Midwest every other week to expand the TV market sure sounds less like education, and more like the NFL."

"Sure, it’s true that many scholastic programs already were mere farm teams for the NFL and NBA, but for the fans, there was still a long and storied history there, keeping us close.
That history included four-year players that led your alma mater to a national championship. A history of your hometown university upsetting the top-ranked team in the country. A history of your local college recruiting players from your own state."

"So the history is eroding. The connection is eroding. And this NIL business might be the nail in the coffin.”

"The bottom line is that the NCAA could have been less greedy and more thoughtful about all this, and headed it off at the pass years ago. There didn’t need to be any Supreme Court cases.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-ncaa-has-only-itself-to-blame-for-the-slow-death-facing-college-sports-11658413109?cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=6&mod=WTRN#cxrecs_s
 
At some point in the next 10-15 years they will put in the equivalent of a salary cap on the nil deals. Until that happens, BCS football playoffs and championships will be decided by 5-6 teams. Everyone else can pound sand.
 
dupuyer griz said:
At some point in the next 10-15 years they will put in the equivalent of a salary cap on the nil deals. Until that happens, BCS football playoffs and championships will be decided by 5-6 teams. Everyone else can pound sand.

As opposed to FCS football playoffs and championships, which are decided by 1 team? :lol:
 
If the best programs start to get the best players just because they can pay them more money, then just a few programs will win national championships in CFB. Imagine if college football NCs were won by just a few programs mostly from one conference. This must be stopped, or Bowling Green and Akron won't have the chance they've had for the last 30 years.
 
The NCAA messed up by opening up both floodgates at the same time. They could have made both work if they would have actually put some tho if not and effort into how to introduce both.

I know asking a lot for the ncaa.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
If the best programs start to get the best players just because they can pay them more money, then just a few programs will win national championships in CFB. Imagine if college football NCs were won by just a few programs mostly from one conference. This must be stopped, or Bowling Green and Akron won't have the chance they've had for the last 30 years.

Yes. So glad it’s different in the FCS. :lol:
 
What it really means is that in future G5 / FCS matchups against upper echelon programs, you'll have a college team playing a professional team.
 
alabamagrizzly said:
first11 said:
There is no upside to nil and portal.

Pretty sure every college athlete would disagree with this statement.

Them kids need to realize that they’re given the opportunity to make sure a coaching staff keeps their jobs. If they want to be modestly compensated for working their asses off for them coaches to make a lot of money, tough. Welcome to the real world. College decisions made in high school should be permanent. Period. Now, I’m going over to the Cheesecake Factory to have myself some real eye-talian food. Last time, the waiter brought water without straws, so I left a one-star rating on Trip Advisor. Excuse me, I gotta grab my “cheaters” for the menu.
 
footballdood said:
What it really means is that in future G5 / FCS matchups against upper echelon programs, you'll have a college team playing a professional team.

As opposed to how it is now?
 
footballdood said:
What it really means is that in future G5 / FCS matchups against upper echelon programs, you'll have a college team playing a professional team.

Uhhh, you’re forgetting any NDSU/FCS matchups.

https://nilcollegeathletes.com/universities/north-dakota-state-university
 
alabamagrizzly said:
footballdood said:
What it really means is that in future G5 / FCS matchups against upper echelon programs, you'll have a college team playing a professional team.

Uhhh, you’re forgetting any NDSU/FCS matchups.

https://nilcollegeathletes.com/universities/north-dakota-state-university

Ugh the website started crapping out on me but all I could really find for football were deals where the athlete appeared to be getting Barstool Sports hoodies, pants, etc.

I don't doubt some FCS players will get small deals, some even big deals like that kid from JSU. But that's a far cry from teams like Alabama where multiple players will end up with 6 figure deals...
 
Various teams are starting up player collectives for NIL money. Kind of a Patreon/QB club kind of thing. It’s actually pretty smart. While the platform they are using takes a pretty big cut, they are able to generate a steady stream of NIL money from fans. It’s in its infancy, but it’s something that out of state fans or fans that don’t have the means to do QB Club can participate in and still benefit the players as a whole.

https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2022/08/oregon-ducks-football-players-form-eugene-nil-collective.html
 
1. An SI article on Collectives:

"Among the 65 Power 5–affiliated collectives, about half are deeply invested in using NIL and stand to raise more than $500 million in combined player funds by year’s end, says Opendorse CEO Blake Lawrence. That includes cash as well as comp cars, apartment rentals and free meals. “There are certain markets where athletes are on pace to out-earn their coaches,” says Lawrence.

Most collective models are similar to Spyre. Donors are paying monthly subscriptions or writing large checks for exclusive access to athletes through social media chats, event appearances or autograph signings. The more one pays, the greater the access and exclusivity. At Spyre, some pay as little as $5 a month; others have cut checks for more than $1 million, says Clawson.

The collective movement has swept across the U.S., as detailed in a Sports Illustrated story published in May. Nearly every Power 5 program has at least one collective, and the trend is reaching other entities, as well. An annual men’s college basketball tournament, the SoCal Challenge, announced last month it is forming a collective to benefit participating players."

https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/10/nil-collectives-boosters-football-tennessee-daily-cover

2. "SMU Student-Athletes to Get $36K Annually
"USC Boosters to Form NIL Collective Against School’s Wishes"

"A group composed of diehard USC fans and wealthy donors are planning to start a third-party name, image and likeness collective to help the program compete with other premier schools with collectives in place.

The collective known as “Student Body Right” goes against the “school’s wishes” of keeping athletes away from donor-related collectives with hopes of preventing any future NIL issues between the school and the NCAA, according to The Los Angeles Times.

SBR’s goal is to provide Trojan football players who are academically eligible with the “equivalent of a base salary.” To earn the payments, players would be required to participate in community service and charity work in local organizations. While details have not been finalized for SBR, the group has filed for 501c3 status as a charitable organization, which would allow for some of the group’s donations to be tax-deductible.

In June, USC started a partnership with media company Stay Doubted to create BLVD LLC, which was launched to facilitate NIL deals for Trojan athletes. However, Dale Rech, a long-standing USC fan, Brian Kennedy, a well-known donor for Trojans athletics, and others are hoping SBR allows them to “contribute to the football program without any connection to USC” per the Times. Currently, BLVD is not registered as 501c3 charitable organization.

As the group pushes forward with the standalone collective, university leaders are troubled. USC athletic director Mike Bohn wrote in a statement to the Times reiterating the program’s stance on the creation of BLVD for its student athletes as well as denying the existence of SBR."

https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/10/usc-boosters-to-form-nil-collective-against-schools-wishes

3. "SMU donor group to pay student-athletes $36K a year through NIL"

https://www.fox7austin.com/video/1103705
 
Couple of points not related to any specific feature of the NIL situation.

On many campuses over the years, there has always been some level of resentment among the general student body concerning the perceived “privileges” granted athletes in the big-money sports. Even when they understand how much work the players put it, the annoyance (anger?) was there. No, I don’t have any numbers … How would you do such a survey? But it was definitely there when we lived in SEC country and, to some extent, the Pac-10(12). Can’t speak for other conferences except second or third hand … but it was (and is) out there. So far, students have gone along with the fees, although there have been some major rumblings about how that could change. So … if players are raking in big money, essentially being paid to play, isn’t that likely to piss off regular students who are piling up student debt? How could it not? For now, I’ll leave it at that.

Point two (which I’ve mentioned before): College players would be worth squat as “celebrities” without the “platform” provided by the school. So far, I’ve seen nothing about how the platform -- the school -- might get a cut of all this money rolling in. The most obvious response (from their point of view) is to reduce the scholarship stipend by the amount the athlete is receiving through NIL contracts. But when these “collectives” start paying players a full “cost of attendance” and more, some folks in the administration are going to start eyeing all that extra dough floating around. Even if they don’t, the guys in the state legislatures will (all but a handful of these institutions are chartered by the states). Think about the budget windfall from cutting major parts of the university/college allocation devoted to sports (at least the most expensive sports). Their reasoning: “With NIL, these sports should be self-supporting, including the staff renumeration.”)
 
IdaGriz01 said:
Couple of points not related to any specific feature of the NIL situation.

On many campuses over the years, there has always been some level of resentment among the general student body concerning the perceived “privileges” granted athletes in the big-money sports. Even when they understand how much work the players put it, the annoyance (anger?) was there. No, I don’t have any numbers … How would you do such a survey? But it was definitely there when we lived in SEC country and, to some extent, the Pac-10(12). Can’t speak for other conferences except second or third hand … but it was (and is) out there. So far, students have gone along with the fees, although there have been some major rumblings about how that could change. So … if players are raking in big money, essentially being paid to play, isn’t that likely to piss off regular students who are piling up student debt? How could it not? For now, I’ll leave it at that.

Point two (which I’ve mentioned before): College players would be worth squat as “celebrities” without the “platform” provided by the school. So far, I’ve seen nothing about how the platform -- the school -- might get a cut of all this money rolling in. The most obvious response (from their point of view) is to reduce the scholarship stipend by the amount the athlete is receiving through NIL contracts. But when these “collectives” start paying players a full “cost of attendance” and more, some folks in the administration are going to start eyeing all that extra dough floating around. Even if they don’t, the guys in the state legislatures will (all but a handful of these institutions are chartered by the states). Think about the budget windfall from cutting major parts of the university/college allocation devoted to sports (at least the most expensive sports). Their reasoning: “With NIL, these sports should be self-supporting, including the staff renumeration.”)

Two good points, especially the first one. While I can understand the college taking a cut point, I don't see the aid being reduced to do so. The NCAA should have stepped up early on, to set rules, which could have included a cut for the college.
 
https://theathletic.com/3497617/2022/08/12/johnson-v-ncaa-college-athletes-employees/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
 
mthoopsfan said:
IdaGriz01 said:
Couple of points not related to any specific feature of the NIL situation.

On many campuses over the years, there has always been some level of resentment among the general student body concerning the perceived “privileges” granted athletes in the big-money sports. Even when they understand how much work the players put it, the annoyance (anger?) was there. No, I don’t have any numbers … How would you do such a survey? But it was definitely there when we lived in SEC country and, to some extent, the Pac-10(12). Can’t speak for other conferences except second or third hand … but it was (and is) out there. So far, students have gone along with the fees, although there have been some major rumblings about how that could change. So … if players are raking in big money, essentially being paid to play, isn’t that likely to piss off regular students who are piling up student debt? How could it not? For now, I’ll leave it at that.

Point two (which I’ve mentioned before): College players would be worth squat as “celebrities” without the “platform” provided by the school. So far, I’ve seen nothing about how the platform -- the school -- might get a cut of all this money rolling in. The most obvious response (from their point of view) is to reduce the scholarship stipend by the amount the athlete is receiving through NIL contracts. But when these “collectives” start paying players a full “cost of attendance” and more, some folks in the administration are going to start eyeing all that extra dough floating around. Even if they don’t, the guys in the state legislatures will (all but a handful of these institutions are chartered by the states). Think about the budget windfall from cutting major parts of the university/college allocation devoted to sports (at least the most expensive sports). Their reasoning: “With NIL, these sports should be self-supporting, including the staff renumeration.”)

Two good points, especially the first one. While I can understand the college taking a cut point, I don't see the aid being reduced to do so. The NCAA should have stepped up early on, to set rules, which could have included a cut for the college.

Griz NIL policy prohibits a reduction in scholarship money based on NIL. I am not suggesting there aren't ways around this, but that is what it says...
 
Back
Top