NIL. What could possibly go wrong??

[El Paso Eagle]

4 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

That's the patient, wait and see approach. But you and I know there is no way this can be good for UNT and its peers. For that matter, it's not good for a lot of programs. Programs like Wake, Indy, Duke, Arizona's, Vandy, BC, KU, and the rest of the other meddling "P5" programs in football will fall to the wayside to other sports. This will eventually make way to 30-40 programs being legitimate semi-pro programs all the while everyone else just sits back and watches the rich get filthy rich. Collegiate sports will eventually be restored in some fashion. My guess, the rich programs will get broken off by leaving the umbrella of the NCAA. 

Combining this with the Pre-Portal recruiting spells trouble for G5 programs

If the NCAA wants to stay around they might be wise to approach those 30-40 teams and try and for a Super League, but I do agree it is coming.

Edited July 1, 2021 by El Paso Eagle

[BillySee58]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

For sure, there's Chicken Little arguments like this:

But then there's To-Be-Expected things like boosters getting involved and overpaying athletes for their n/i/l in order to accrue/keep talent.

I guess we'll see if NT plays the game if we see Rubin Jones pop up as a spokesman for certain aloe vera products, and Dion Novil shows up in certain tax prep ads.

It is to be expected that boosters will get involved now, particularly over the table rather than under or indirectly. What I’m waiting for the jury on is how much does that change the landscape?

Sure boosters could help keep their guys, sure they could help take guys away. Does that create a drastically different landscape in regards to talent pooling from what we see now, while teams are still limited to the number of scholarship players they can roster?

The arguments I’m more concerned about tabling for now are the ones regarding those type of effects. 

[RBP79]

It's all about money and ego. The two will destroy college athletics eventually...for sure as we know it today.

"SHOW ME THE MONEY"!!!!  is the new rally cry!

[97and03]

10 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

A lot of people will be surprised when some of the big $$$ goes to players from Women's Golf/Tennis/Volleyball

Sarah Fuller will make more money off this than any our our football players. 

[outoftown]

16 hours ago, Udomann said:

There could be some upside potential as this shuffles people through different schools.

Example:

A. Gatorade sponsors some camps and ads for guys at Alabama, but only has so much funds to distribute. So the top 5 players there get some nice income, etc...

B. The next 5 players see more monetary gain else, for example maybe Hyundai decides to pick up that missed SMU market, so they jump ship and head to SMU

C. But those next 5 at SMU say they wouldn't be caught dead in a Hyundai (after all, that's where they store the hookers bodies), but that Peterbilt billboard sponsorship contract in Denton seems kinda nice, since that degree will only be worth driving a fork lift after mom and dad's trust fund dries up...

 

Point is, top schools will always get the best representation, but at some point the money supply runs out (in theory), and they go to the next best place to roost, and then the next, and the next to keep chasing that income stream.

It doesn't fix the disparity between programs, but it could put some high profile folks at schools that can "entice" them after higher schools run out of opportunities (not saying the schools are paying, but obviously Nike is more likely to sign an athlete from Clemson than, say, Southern Alabama)

That's how it would work and it would be ok.... if it were not for the fact that this is happening the same year as free transfers were put in place, making sure that if you hit on one of those guys behind, he will just leave to follow the money the junior or senior year. That last part is what combines with this to blow the disparity open to completely new levels

Edited July 2, 2021 by outoftown

[GreenN'walinsVet]

19 hours ago, BillySee58 said:

It is to be expected that boosters will get involved now, particularly over the table rather than under or indirectly. What I’m waiting for the jury on is how much does that change the landscape?

Sure boosters could help keep their guys, sure they could help take guys away. Does that create a drastically different landscape in regards to talent pooling from what we see now, while teams are still limited to the number of scholarship players they can roster?

The arguments I’m more concerned about tabling for now are the ones regarding those type of effects. 

I guess the real pitfall could be Mega donors stepping up and paying players enough money to allow them to "walk on" at places like Alabama and such, therefore not using a scholarship and allow the scholarships to be used to less marketable players   

[BillySee58]

12 minutes ago, GreenN'walinsVet said:

I guess the real pitfall could be Mega donors stepping up and paying players enough money to allow them to "walk on" at places like Alabama and such, therefore not using a scholarship and allow the scholarships to be used to less marketable players   

Yeah that would definitely cause some potential problems. Again, that’s the kind of thing that I’ll start worrying about if there’s an indication. Does it start happening and to what degree will be the things to monitor.

We have definitely seen it happen where kids with a lot of financial support from there family have chose to walk on at bigger programs. Luke Del Rio, son of NFL coach Jack Del Rio, decommitted from OK State to walk on at Alabama a while back. Around that time we were recruiting a Liberty Christian lineman who chose to walk on at OK State instead.

And obvious the NCAA is a joke so relying on them to enforce things is going to be another huge variable.

[Salsa_Verde]

22 hours ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

Example: SMU. This won’t work. 
5 years, College football will be corrupt to the bones. Players being paid to throw games

College football and college athletics has and never will be pure. Too much money to be made…players aren’t going to throw games that’s ridiculous, these athletes get attention for winning not because they lose. 

[Salsa_Verde]

22 hours ago, Cougar King said:

The moment UNT tries to pay athletes is the moment the student body tries to get the whole department shut down. 

The NT Daily already attacked the spending on Apogee and the student referendum originally voted no to building it. 

 

I just don't see how this is gonna work for schools in CUSA who have very few rich boosters and an anti-athletics student body 

One article by one student journalist does not equal the voice of the student body. It’s going to work fine if the school has a coherent plan to market it’s athletes, especially it’s female ones. Every school is on the same boat. 

[Salsa_Verde]

21 hours ago, Udomann said:

It was just an example. Pick any North Texas company that may want a slice of the pie. This is a business opportunity for them. In theory, you spend on advertising and get more income. If this NIL business model works, then companies will start using it. Which could result in some nice boosters to the school.

Think a couple years back, as it trickles down, someone could maybe have seen Mason Fine and said there's a potential sponsorship name there. Or Darden even now that he's drafted. We have a few marketable players, it could happen.

Winning and winning consistently (people should put this on a shirt by now) that’s always been the biggest hurdle for The North Texas brand 

[Salsa_Verde]

22 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

A lot of people will be surprised when some of the big $$$ goes to players from Women's Golf/Tennis/Volleyball

I would think this will benefit female athletes far more than men. You have softball players with huge followings, some collegiate female gymnasts have over 1 million followers on IG (Olivia Dunne) and even some athletes that are just attractive and play sports are getting deals ( Cavinder Twins with boost mobile) crazy times. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Salsa_Verde

[jtm0097]

A kid from my hometown that went to Arkansas for a semester, and transferred to SMU just released his merchandise store online. I hope the kid didn't pay any money for the store. He couldn't crack the lineup at Arkansas, and SMU made him switch positions. Some of these kids will get bad advice. I hope they're educated properly.

[Texas Stranger]

I'm looking forward to Adidas or Under Armor wanting to pay a player to pimp their logo at Oregon (or Baylor).

[PlummMeanGreen]

On 7/1/2021 at 11:56 AM, Harry said:

There is no way to police this policy.  The NCAA is a joke!

Few seem to be laughing, though, Harry.
 I guess by the time I croak the whole damn country is going to look like a friggin’ Chinese fire drill.   
I can just see all of SMU’s attorney’s on their athletic committee (with all their hair slicked back a la Pat Riley) just licking their chops over the possibilities with all this.  
It’s ready-made for them.  They would be the first school for the NCAA to put a high-powered microscope on what they will be promising some kids. 

❇️🦅❇️

Edited July 3, 2021 by PlummMeanGreen

[greenminer]

6 hours ago, jtm0097 said:

A kid from my hometown that went to Arkansas for a semester, and transferred to SMU just released his merchandise store online. I hope the kid didn't pay any money for the store. He couldn't crack the lineup at Arkansas, and SMU made him switch positions. Some of these kids will get bad advice. I hope they're educated properly.

You need to factor in the kid’s hometown draw. How big is his family? Was he a star in his HS team? That is potentially a small community of people that will support him no matter what for a few years.

[outoftown]

I wonder one thing: If boosters are now essentially allowed to funnel money to players openly and directly, wherefore they can funnel a lot more money towards the players, will they be less willing to spend money on coaches salaries, wherefore we might actually see those salaries stop rising at the pace it was the last 2 decades?

I mean now you can essentially use the money to buy a team, why spend as much buying a coach, seems buying the team should be just as efficient.

[Got5onIt]

On 7/1/2021 at 12:34 PM, MeanGreen_MBA said:

I don’t know if I agree with paying players. That is what the scholarship is. How about stop scholarships and pay the players. They are then responsible for paying their own tuition and living expenses. How many of the players would spend all the money and “forget” to pay tuition. 
The value of a scholarship is huge…not sure how that gets lost. 

Ok, then put all Coaches on normal faculty member salaries. Eliminate the NCAA board salaries and make them volunteer only. You want to see people bitch, moan, scrape, scratch, and cry then take millions from these do nothings that ride the backs of all student athletes to their homes in the Hamptons. 

[Greenrex]

On the surface, I have held a positive view of these developments but, in the small sampling that I've observed it seems to me there is generally an almost negative view of all this. I'm wondering if there might eventually be something of a public backlash toward athletes and the goods and services they promote?

[TheColonyEagle]

Wouldn't Oregon be able to really take advantage of this?

Why couldn't Phil Knight just pay the top recruits/players a load of money to work for Nike. He could pay 50 to 100 players six figures each and just use them for Nike. That money is nothing to him.

Also, I wonder how long before we get our first million dollar college athlete. Probably won't take long.

Also Michael Jordan brand and UNC. I would think their basketball program is about to get back on track quickly.

Going to be so fascinating to watch...

 

Here's the track and field stadium Phil Knight built Oregon:

https://www.insider.com/oregons-270-million-nike-track-stadium-2021-3#the-university-contracted-with-hoffman-construction-and-srg-partnership-for-the-renovations-4

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by TheColonyEagle

[PlummMeanGreen]

The NCAA headquarters bureaucrats are almost as bad as the Deep State clowns in Washington who are on a daily non-stop shopping spree with our tax monies.  
Just another reason for the 2’nd Amendment to thrive & exist.
Officers are dropping out of America’s police forces in record numbers. Thus...another reason.   It’s going to be the wild, Wild West.  
 

❇️🦅❇️

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by PlummMeanGreen

[MeanGreen_MBA]

On 7/5/2021 at 9:34 AM, Got5onIt said:

Ok, then put all Coaches on normal faculty member salaries. Eliminate the NCAA board salaries and make them volunteer only. You want to see people bitch, moan, scrape, scratch, and cry then take millions from these do nothings that ride the backs of all student athletes to their homes in the Hamptons. 

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. We are talking about student athletes….not coaches, administrators, and certainly not the NCAA. Student athlete on scholarship are handsomely compensated for their efforts on the field with the scholarships they receive. If they want to get paid…I suggest paying them, but take away the scholarship. They can pay tuition, room and board out of their salary. What is wrong with that??  However, if they fail to pay tuition, they are dropped from the team for non-enrollment. 
playing college sports is not much different that doing an internship. You are learning the game/work it takes to succeed at your chosen occupation. Hopefully enough that somebody will hire/draft you to work for them. 

[UNTcrazy727]

On 7/5/2021 at 3:44 AM, outoftown said:

I wonder one thing: If boosters are now essentially allowed to funnel money to players openly and directly, wherefore they can funnel a lot more money towards the players, will they be less willing to spend money on coaches salaries, wherefore we might actually see those salaries stop rising at the pace it was the last 2 decades?

I mean now you can essentially use the money to buy a team, why spend as much buying a coach, seems buying the team should be just as efficient.

It's already happening.

Quote

Dan Lambert, the owner of American Top Team and a longtime Miami football fan, has offered each scholarship player on the Miami football team a monthly payment of $500 this year to advertise his gyms on social media. American Top Team is the home training facility for more than two dozen professional fighters, including Jorge Masvidal and Amanda Nunes.

This is going to get out of hand fast if the NCAA doesn't do something. I'm not sure what the answer is, but some kind of salary cap will have to be put in place to prevent Boosters from bankrolling entire rosters. 

[El Paso Eagle]

24 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

It's already happening.

This is going to get out of hand fast if the NCAA doesn't do something. I'm not sure what the answer is, but some kind of salary cap will have to be put in place to prevent Boosters from bankrolling entire rosters. 

The guy in Miami is willing to spend $540,000 a year on this benefit

[DentonLurker]

19 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

The guy in Miami is willing to spend $540,000 a year on this benefit

Private school dollars are going to come in handy in this new world

[chomp]

The fact that the first booster to plan to bankroll an entire team is a Miami booster is the world's least surprising development.

Part of me is starting wonder if the long-term consequences of this are going to be worse in the end for the P5 than the G5. One of the draws of college football has always been some combo of the tradition coupled with the idea that alumni & students share something in common with the players from our school. I realize that the college experience of most major college football players has always looked a good bit more different than that of an average student, but that gap has been increasing over the years as schools pour more and more money into fancy facilities, transfer rules have loosened, etc. Things like what this Miami booster is doing (and you know boosters elsewhere will do the same) to take advantage of NIL are only going to increase that gap. At some point, I suspect that it is going to get harder and harder for a typical alumnus of a P5 to see any more connection to a football player from their school than they do to the pro football player in the nearest city.

I suspect that UNT athletes are pretty representative of other G5 schools. The students that I see in my classes at UNT take similar classes to their peers and seem to have an overall experience at UNT that looks a lot more similar to that of what many non-student athletes at UNT have. Perhaps that will translate into future alumni from schools like UNT caring more and seeing a deeper connection to their student athletes than I think is looming for the P5. Then again, I'm someone who has always enjoyed minor league baseball more than major league, so maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part.