NIL DEVIL!

[Mo Green]

Could paying these young college age men $$$ give them a false sense of worth greater than their college team and school? So, when the school needs them, they bail?

Food for thought poor FSU!

[Graddean]

I think the NIL could be structured to reduce opt outs.  NIL agreements could be backloaded to require the athlete to participate in all games.  Refusing to play in a bowl game would result in a financial penalty of sorts inducing the player to participate. 

[UNT Family Man]

It is turning into what will be contractual. What portion of the deal is guaranteed, what portion is base on production and/or games played. 

[outoftown]

10 minutes ago, Graddean said:

I think the NIL could be structured to reduce opt outs.  NIL agreements could be back loaded to require the athlete to participate in all games.  Refusing to play in a bowl game would result in a financial penalty of sorts inducing the player to participate. 

That would potentially work... IF the NCAA would first take out the rule where NIL cannot contain pay-for-play. Not sure they are willing to do that officially, even if they might not really have the appetite to enforce it

[ntmeangreen11]

One of the worst parts is players talk and when player A learns player B is making 20k more than him it breeds envy amongst teammates. All these guys and the people in their ear think they should play day one and have NFL futures. I know of a local player who went SEC and started this year but since he was offered less than other returning players who played he transferred. His Dad shopped him around with only criteria for new school being he needs a minimum of $100k. 
 

Everyone agrees something needs to be done, but nothing will be done, NCAA is toast and the sooner we accept the fact that all the millions we pour in to football would be much better invested in to basketball the better off we will be. 

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, Mo Green said:

Could paying these young college age men $$$ give them a false sense of worth greater than their college team and school? So, when the school needs them, they bail?

Food for thought poor FSU!

 

LEARNING!!!!!!!!

 

 

Rick

[Meangreen Fight]

7 hours ago, outoftown said:

That would potentially work... IF the NCAA would first take out the rule where NIL cannot contain pay-for-play. Not sure they are willing to do that officially, even if they might not really have the appetite to enforce it

That would be the death knell to anything resembling what we had before NIL.  Labor laws become in full effect.   A players union may start, minimum salaries, family healthcare coverage and other considerations become financial burdens.  Coaches would have to take pay cuts at most programs or ticket prices raised significantly.  Raising ticket prices is not a good option because attendance isn’t just a problem at G5 programs.  A lot of FBS just leaves because they can’t sustain that financial model and the other sports they want to sponsor in NCAA.  
 

The decision makers for the bowl games created this issue by following the same “survival of the fittest” bottom line at every step in their development through the years.  Most bowls gave up their traditional names, venues, dates, conference tie-ins and etc when enough cash was flashed at them. Then you had the BCS reducing the value of all the bowls not in the NY6 BCS agreement.  The best thing for EVERYONE at the time was a 4 team playoff AFTER all the traditional bowls were played.  Go look up the history.  In EVERY year there was controversy (not involving an high ranked team ineligible for post season play due to NCAA rules violations) a 4 team playoff after the bowls would have settled everything with zero controversy except maybe bad calls in the games themselves. 🤷🏽‍♂️

 

Look at this year.  How many players sit out from the top 8-10 ranked teams in Bowl games if they know by winning their bowl game they could be selected for the playoff?  Not many.  Their goal as players is to play for championships, get their education, and/or get to the NFL.  Playing in a meaningless bowl does not assist that endeavor in any way if their games have been on TV every week of the regular season.  
 

The casual FBS fan base that will watch bowl games with no impact on playoff participation or not an actual playoff game isn’t very big.  

So if you want them to play for your entertainment exclusively, then they should directly get compensated from the same funding pool the TV and ticket sale money goes into not just NIL.

Edited January 1 by Meangreen Fight

[GoGreenBeans]

NIL having more incentive based clauses seems like a potential solution. Keeps players in games to get their money. Obviously they’d still have a base pay, but giving incentives feels like that would improve a lot of competitive issues that have come up. Games played, milestones reached, winning the conference etc could be incentives 

[Meangreen Fight]

3 hours ago, GoGreenBeans said:

NIL having more incentive based clauses seems like a potential solution. Keeps players in games to get their money. Obviously they’d still have a base pay, but giving incentives feels like that would improve a lot of competitive issues that have come up. Games played, milestones reached, winning the conference etc could be incentives 

Not likely.  Even a 50k NIL game check for top players headed to the NFL isn’t worth risking millions for an exhibition game.  What will Cheez-It Bowl swag mean when the game is no longer called that or doesn’t even exist in the schedule.  

[RBP79]

NIL sucks. All the NCAA has done is create a Semi-Pro league with no accountability to the University, NCAA, or for the individual athlete. The Holy 'Buck' now rules! . No loyalty to the school or fans. It's all about "SHOW ME THE MONEY"!

Lol

PS..THE PORTAL SUCKS TOO!

 

 

[DentonStang]

NIL is not the cause for opt outs 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

27 minutes ago, DentonStang said:

NIL is not the cause for opt outs 

That's nonsense. There are players not leaving for the NFL, but for other college programs that did not play in their team/former teams bowl game. And they are going to their new school(s) for $. 

[emmitt01]

9 hours ago, outoftown said:

That would potentially work... IF the NCAA would first take out the rule where NIL cannot contain pay-for-play. Not sure they are willing to do that officially, even if they might not really have the appetite to enforce it

NIL is pay-for-play, and anyone who denies this is either not too bright or being disingenuous.   
 

Texas doesn’t offer 100k to EVERY o-lineman recruit a year ago because they’re actually utilizing their name, image, or likeness.   Kids aren’t signing with SMU because they think “yeah, the culture of this place fits me.”  

Kids are earning a salary and the NCAA is expecting people to believe it is anything but what it is.  

[GreenFlag]

1 hour ago, RBP79 said:

NIL sucks. All the NCAA has done is create a Semi-Pro league with no accountability to the University, NCAA, or for the individual athlete. The Holy 'Buck' now rules! . No loyalty to the school or fans. It's all about "SHOW ME THE MONEY"!

Lol

PS..THE PORTAL SUCKS TOO!

 

 

The NCAA didn’t do this. The U.S. Supreme Court did by unanimous ruling (IMHO correctly) that education related benefit caps the NCAA imposed on student athletes are in violation is U.S. anti-trust laws. 

The NCAA passes regulations voted on by member institutions. 
 

The NCAA isn’t an evil overlord. 

 

[NT80]

1 hour ago, emmitt01 said:

NIL is pay-for-play, and anyone who denies this is either not too bright or being disingenuous.   
 

Texas doesn’t offer 100k to EVERY o-lineman recruit a year ago because they’re actually utilizing their name, image, or likeness.   Kids aren’t signing with SMU because they think “yeah, the culture of this place fits me.”  

Kids are earning a salary and the NCAA is expecting people to believe it is anything but what it is.  

I have never seen a current college athlete in a TV commercial or print ad in DFW advertising anything.

NIL is just code for pay-me-to-play for you....until another school wants to pay-me-more-to-play for them.

Players will soon have agents to renegotiate for them each season, if they don't already have one.

[RBP79]

1 hour ago, GreenFlag said:

The NCAA didn’t do this. The U.S. Supreme Court did by unanimous ruling (IMHO correctly) that education related benefit caps the NCAA imposed on student athletes are in violation is U.S. anti-trust laws. 

The NCAA passes regulations voted on by member institutions. 
 

The NCAA isn’t an evil overlord. 

 

You are correct...its your opinion. My opinion is the state of college athletics is directly related to the bad decisions made by the NCAA and the incompetence of their legal team. But hey...its all good! It will be good entertainment watching college athletics as we know it implode. 

[DentonStang]

3 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

That's nonsense. There are players not leaving for the NFL, but for other college programs that did not play in their team/former teams bowl game. And they are going to their new school(s) for $. 

I'd say it's the open transfer rules generally. While some transfer just for money, good programs can pay their people what the are worth. Most transfers are for play time because they are doomed to backup status where they are. Or they don't like the coach etc.

[UNTLifer]

11 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

 

LEARNING!!!!!!!!

 

 

Rick

Happy New Year. Good to see you posting. 

[outoftown]

10 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

NIL is pay-for-play, and anyone who denies this is either not too bright or being disingenuous.   
 

Texas doesn’t offer 100k to EVERY o-lineman recruit a year ago because they’re actually utilizing their name, image, or likeness.   Kids aren’t signing with SMU because they think “yeah, the culture of this place fits me.”  

Kids are earning a salary and the NCAA is expecting people to believe it is anything but what it is.  

That is all true. But the fact that the NCAA, while not enforcing anything, still does not want to admit that pay for play is allowed will still change the way contracts are structured, and this part is one where people will only do it once that rule is officially of the books. Because it will also be difficult for the collective to enforce it. People -rightfully -blame the NCAA for not enforcing anything. The NCAA isn't because it likely wouldn't stand up in court if it really did. But notice that collectives aren't really enforcing their contracts either if it gets dicey. Or if they do they sure are trying to keep that hush hush.

[MrAlien]

NCAA has not real power, in reality just a handful of schools have the power to do anything because they have the conferences and state legislatures behind them.  When the NIL starts to effect those schools negatively is when you will see change. 

I do think at some point the current NIL system will start to negatively impact the educational reputations of some of these institutions, especially the smaller private schools. 

[emmitt01]

I just heard the single dumbest argument ever for NIL as it stands while watching College Game Day.  The prospect of requiring players to compete in bowl games as part of their NIL agreement was brought up, and one of the talking heads said “but the NIL isn’t associated with the school!”

So, let me get this straight.   If I offered a kid who happens to play football free meals or a rent free house, that was called an “impermissible benefit” 2 years ago because I am a “booster”, though I am not employed by the school.   But, if I now offer a kid a check for 50k to sign with my university I’m just a “NIL collective” and no association with the school is implied???

[NT80]

36 minutes ago, emmitt01 said:

I just heard the single dumbest argument ever for NIL as it stands while watching College Game Day.  The prospect of requiring players to compete in bowl games as part of their NIL agreement was brought up, and one of the talking heads said “but the NIL isn’t associated with the school!”

So, let me get this straight.   If I offered a kid who happens to play football free meals or a rent free house, that was called an “impermissible benefit” 2 years ago because I am a “booster”, though I am not employed by the school.   But, if I now offer a kid a check for 50k to sign with my university I’m just a “NIL collective” and no association with the school is implied???

Back in October there was an article about the NCAA proposing schools be allowed to manage NIL.   But like most things NCAA now, it has little power to enact or enforce any rule.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38615589/ncaa-discuss-nil-changes-allowing-more-school-involvement

[wardly]

21 hours ago, ntmeangreen11 said:

One of the worst parts is players talk and when player A learns player B is making 20k more than him it breeds envy amongst teammates. All these guys and the people in their ear think they should play day one and have NFL futures. I know of a local player who went SEC and started this year but since he was offered less than other returning players who played he transferred. His Dad shopped him around with only criteria for new school being he needs a minimum of $100k. 
 

Everyone agrees something needs to be done, but nothing will be done, NCAA is toast and the sooner we accept the fact that all the millions we pour in to football would be much better invested in to basketball the better off we will be. 

Different pay for different play is called the NFL. I am no attorney but I can't see where the NCAA has the power to intervene in NIL payments.

[NT80]

2 hours ago, wardly said:

Different pay for different play is called the NFL. I am no attorney but I can't see where the NCAA has the power to intervene in NIL payments.

They could perhaps mandate an NIL cap limit per program, like the NFL salary cap.  But also like the NFL, players could just get around it by having endorsement deals for more $$ outside of any NIL restrictions.  So, really there is no way to ensure boosters are not paying players to come to certain schools.

 

 

[Meangreen Fight]

4 hours ago, outoftown said:

That is all true. But the fact that the NCAA, while not enforcing anything, still does not want to admit that pay for play is allowed will still change the way contracts are structured, and this part is one where people will only do it once that rule is officially of the books. Because it will also be difficult for the collective to enforce it. People -rightfully -blame the NCAA for not enforcing anything. The NCAA isn't because it likely wouldn't stand up in court if it really did. But notice that collectives aren't really enforcing their contracts either if it gets dicey. Or if they do they sure are trying to keep that hush hush.

Fundamentally it is all a farce legally.  Once the NCAA lost control of television contracts in 1984 they lost financial control of the biggest revenue source outside donations going directly to the schools.  That was when the NCAA should have been proactive creating better transfer rules and a NIL system.  They’ve let the financial hypocrisy buildup so long since 1984 that once the dam broke it was bound to be a ton of collateral damage.  SMU was a canary in the coal mine sacrificing a small private school program knowing full well they would NEVER do it the blue blood programs if they were caught doing the same thing.  The NCAA is controlled by the big brand programs not vice versa.  As soon as an NCAA president has the courage to implement anything for the good of the whole that hampers the elite they either be fired or a lawsuit from some of the member institutions is forthcoming.