NIL Guide

[NorthwoodHusker]

I am ok with NIL but cannot see providing monies to high school athletes who have not played one down in college. I think it should be prohibited using as a recruiting inducement. Fine the collective for violations, make the athlete ineligible for looking for another school before entering the portal etc. The NCAA or legislation had better provide parameters as the abuse seems to be increasing.

We can always introduce the under eighteen labor laws, which are very pliable and often very specific.

 

[LivinL]

Had NIL been in effect back in my day at the college level ('92-'97), I wouldn't have had to listen to that crap-box of a car Terrell Farley drove every single day. He could have afforded a muffler!

DONU must have gone straight in the 90’s. In the late 80’s the players (even the ones from the hood). Had cars with fancy rims and great stereo systems.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Disagree with the bolded. As they are not paid for the on-field performance, but rather their social media presence and marketing, they are NOT professional players.

Ehh, this is only partially true. Yes, the way NIL is supposed to work, this would be the case. However, the way these collectives are working they are funneling pools of donor money to players. While it isn't incentive based, the bigger name players/recruits are able to pull a large check than those who aren't. A lot of professional contracts aren't paid directly from on-field performance either.

While there are plenty of players making little to no money playing college football, there are also plenty who are making more than most of us make in a year. Those players are definitely professionals.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

I’m sorry but I pretty much disagree with all these responses that suggest the ncaa or the universities get into bed deeper with the NIL/player relationship. We do not need the NFL involved, we do not need to make them professionals, and we do not need to pay them. Just keep the status quo rules in place in regards to scholarship numbers and enforce the rules regarding the schools or coaches having any involvement in it. Is it perfect? No. But it seems like some of the knee jerk reactions to fix it are what’s going to ruin college football.

Someone remind me how NIL effected this years playoffs or final rankings?

I agree with you that many people overstate the impact of some of these things on college football. Portal movement happened before NIL. I think a lot of the dollar figures that get thrown around are overblown, too. I also believe that college football has been broken for a really long time, from a competitive balance standpoint. There also will likely be a correction factor on some of this NIL stuff.

That said, it certainly has made an impact. The fact that recruiting, at least at the top-end of players, is turning into a bidding war, I feel like is a problem. I don't like the idea that college football could become dominated by whichever school has the boosters with the deepest pockets. You could make the case that has always been the case with college football, and I'd have a tough time arguing against that.

College football has always lacked parity, as the rich generally get richer. The question is whether NIL will help even the field or make that problem worse.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I think there's money and then there's contracts. Many faceless donors out there, or monies, which are then moved to and for players.
Then there are contracts, pipeline burritos if you will, decoldest air conditioners etc.
Now the value may be set on potential of both, not reality. If a guy isn't marketable he won't ever reach that potential. Example would be the Polar bears mostly non talking or off camera commercial. And not even saying it was him here, it could be they weren't confident in the look they wanted to portray which is on the advertiser as much as the people in it.
So adding it all together gets a value, realized or not.

 

[Hville]

I am ok with NIL but cannot see providing monies to high school athletes who have not played one down in college. I think it should be prohibited using as a recruiting inducement. Fine the collective for violations, make the athlete ineligible for looking for another school before entering the portal etc. The NCAA or legislation had better provide parameters as the abuse seems to be increasing.

NIL isn't a college specific issue. High School players are also allowed to make money off their name, image and likeness. Just because some company gave them 2K to endorse their product shouldn't make them inelgible for college. The parameters preventing abuse are there. They are just being abused. Even our fans are trying to come up with ways and ideas to bypass scholarship limits to let NIL pay for walk-Ons. That's not what it is intended for.

 

[Hville]

I agree with you that many people overstate the impact of some of these things on college football. Portal movement happened before NIL. I think a lot of the dollar figures that get thrown around are overblown, too. I also believe that college football has been broken for a really long time, from a competitive balance standpoint. There also will likely be a correction factor on some of this NIL stuff.

That said, it certainly has made an impact. The fact that recruiting, at least at the top-end of players, is turning into a bidding war, I feel like is a problem. I don't like the idea that college football could become dominated by whichever school has the boosters with the deepest pockets. You could make the case that has always been the case with college football, and I'd have a tough time arguing against that.

College football has always lacked parity, as the rich generally get richer. The question is whether NIL will help even the field or make that problem worse.

Expecting NIL to even the playing field isn't the purpose. Expecting coaches and administration not to be involved in using NIL as an enticement should. The bottom line is the NCAA has been wrong for a long time trying to control coaches from using finances as a recruiting tool. They did that by saying players couldn't make any money. SCOTUS corrected that. But instead, the Coaches and the Universities tried to capitalize on this for recruiting purposes and are using collectives to work around the direct contact issues. The NCAA simply has to state we are going to enforce rules that are already in place. There should be zero contact between schools/coaches and the collectives. It shouldn't be allowed to be discussed with potential recruits until after they have signed. Simple. Then enforce anything that appears to be breaking the rules. When you have teams that have most of their scholarship players making less than 10K a year but ten non-schlarship players making 35K a year to cover the cost of a scholarship it doesn't take a genius to see that is trying to skirt the 85 scholarship rules and pay for play.

 

[Cornhuskers7]

Expecting NIL to even the playing field isn't the purpose. Expecting coaches and administration not to be involved in using NIL as an enticement should. The bottom line is the NCAA has been wrong for a long time trying to control coaches from using finances as a recruiting tool. They did that by saying players couldn't make any money. SCOTUS corrected that. But instead, the Coaches and the Universities tried to capitalize on this for recruiting purposes and are using collectives to work around the direct contact issues. The NCAA simply has to state we are going to enforce rules that are already in place. There should be zero contact between schools/coaches and the collectives. It shouldn't be allowed to be discussed with potential recruits until after they have signed. Simple. Then enforce anything that appears to be breaking the rules. When you have teams that have most of their scholarship players making less than 10K a year but ten non-schlarship players making 35K a year to cover the cost of a scholarship it doesn't take a genius to see that is trying to skirt the 85 scholarship rules and pay for play.

NIL shouldn't be expected to even the playing field, but it is bad if it makes things more lopsided than they already are. The solution isn't to get rid of NIL (not that it would be an option to, even if they wanted to), but to fix the system so these athletes can profit off themselves while also not making the sport a competition of who can spend the most money.

Professional sports have had this problem and have navigated how to build competitive balance through the draft and certain contractual rights the teams have (franchise tag, team options, salary caps). If it was simply true NIL, where players just earned money on the things NIL is supposed to be for, this wouldn't be a problem. The issue is boosters are willing to just throw money at stuff in hopes that it will make their team better. If you had "collectives" in professional sports, those would be an issue too.

The problem is the NCAA is unable to oversee any of this effectively. They could make all sorts of rules to try and control the issues we've already seen, but they'd be as effective as every other rule the NCAA has. The majority of the rule breaking that comes to light are the things the schools self report to try and satisfy the NCAA. The only time big-time rule breaking comes out is when it has been going on for a very long time and has been poorly covered up.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

There are haves and have not. But essentially the vast majority of athletes likely fall into that good enough category, where a certain amount will reach their pockets, stars or not.
Beside the toll it takes, look no further than basketball and baseball or hockey and the number of games in a season. Major costs for a football team of over 100 athletes, thus larger arenas to make up costs.

NIL gets spread around a football team much thinner with the same amount available.
Now add in the have nots who could never get x amount of players any monies.
Its a business and an entertainment investment.