Now that players can make money "legitimately", if that will have an impact on the bags of money being handed out under the table. The current dark money system does represent a risk to the payer, the payee, and the school. Will access to legal money make some of that dark money too risky for some?
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Will NIL take any of the "dark money" out of recruiting?
- Thread starter CPUHog
- Start date
Maybe. Here's what I've been wondering. I have a little side tax business. Could I pick out a player, and pay him whatever I want to plug my business on social media?? Should someone out there be matching up players and businesses?? Could this be a big advantage for programs like DONU who have a big following?? Some with $ ?
I have mentioned this in a few other places but here is how I see this playing out with some schools.
I will use Oregon as the most glaring example:
Phil Knight, "I will pay every high 4*/5* that commits and signs with Oregon TONS of NIL $$ through a NIKE endorsement." And he can, because he is a billionaire and the $$ would be pocket change for him. Other schools will have similar "fans" but Oregon is the glaring example on how this can really separate the half's and have nots in CFB. we will see a small handful of schools become the annual elite, like Alabama and Clemson have been the last 10 years or so.
For years I was against stipends for football players and now I wish we would go back to it because we have opened Pandora’s Box. Unless I am interpreting the rules wrong we can certainly have a pay to play type scenario going on in college football where you can buy the best team money can purchase. This really could suck.
I honestly don't think this system will benefit Nebraska. We may not be one of the big losers but you can bet we're not going to be one of the big winners. This is going to be serious money by serious businesses and boosters and they're going to want big markets....and Nebraska isn't one of them I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Agree with Nash, we have opened up a prob, that is now un-reversible. Agents, and promo folks can easily represent business and get kids cash now, even kids who do next to nothing to earn it. We have just ruined our favorite sport, itll take 2-3 yrs to see some big problematic situations. But its now on the fast track.
I don’t want to like your post but you are spot on.
Short answer (IMO), nope. I'm not a fan of NIL. Maybe it's just because I'm getting a little long in the tooth, but I always thought a scholarship and an opportunity to get a college degree was quite a good deal. Guess that doesn't mean squat to some players now.
I know you are just using Nike/Phil Knight as an example, but it's important to remember that major corporations like Nike are separate from people like Phil Knight. Knight was the founder of Nike, but he's not a majority shareholder and is no longer the CEO. For Nike (or a similar company) to sponsor someone it'd have to go through their marketing budgets, and eventually through their board and shareholders. It would be hard for a publicly traded company to justify major marketing spends like this without ROI. Also, for a company like Nike - they'd have to defend a "payment" to Oregon players to other schools they sponsor. If I were Oklahoma (a Jordan school) I'd be really upset if Nike started giving Duck players $10,000 but not Sooner players.
It'd be much easier for Phil Knight the person (or Kevin Plank, Under Armour founder and former Maryland football player) to sponsor a player individually and pay him/her to promote his book, or his foundation or heck, his neighborhood garden. It's Phil's money, he can do with it what he wants. This is essentially what that Miami booster did.
Last edited:
You make some great points but I would expect a Phil Knight to be much more willing than Warren Buffett to throw some dollars towards a college football player.
Think about it this way. You build a national football brand...lets say, USC. It gets good because you're buying all the 4-5* players on the west coast. You develop a dynasty with big name players and National Championships start rolling in. It snowballs into a a national brand and everyone wants to sponsor these players. Its a nasty, sticky mess and for all those who say its only fair for the players...it still sucks. The playing field was not level, but now it will be forever tilted to the big markets. Nebraska will not be able to compete unless there are some legit limits that are enforceable.
I am not sure how it works but I will take you at your word and yes, it was an example. And I agree, the individual can do it as you showed with your Knight and his book, etc, etc. All I know is that it will become a free for all and there will be college athletes making 6 figures OR MORE before all is said and done. And there will be only a small number of schools that will be able to do it. Unless a ton of alumni get together and start a "foundation" (a great example from you) and pool all their "spending cash" together and start paying the athletes to "promote their foundation" but unless that happens, there will be a great disparity between the half's and have nots.
Good thing Richard Branson didn't go to a college here in the states otherwise you might see player's faces heading to space on the outside of the Virgin Galactic.
For years & years we have stayed away from paying players (bag man) and we mostly chase high character kids. I agree it won't benefit NU but the silver lining may be that we won't attract kids looking for 'benefits' & 'promises'. They might enter the portal after a year for a better offer anyway.
